Fornits
General Interest => Open Free for All => Topic started by: Anonymous on March 04, 2010, 10:52:47 PM
-
Re: DAYTOP Did Me Great Harm in the Long Run
Postby psy » 01 Dec 2008, 23:32
Interesting you include "some other group". If you're referring to what I think you are, i'd tend to agree. Institutionalized 12 steppery performs a forced conversion function as a front group for the 12 step religion as a whole. You might find this chapter of this book (link) by Charles Bufe interesting. It's a controversial viewpoint that some are very opposed to but personally I think it makes a lot of sense.
:shamrock:
Posted by Danny Bennison >> 03 March 2010, 23:27
Interesting thoughts here from folks that I don't believe have ever been a member or they were and probably left because they chose to drink or get high. Which if you read the literature of the twelve traditions Tradition 3 states, "The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking." So what am I saying here. Well I have a big ole group think here (fornits) to contend with. Which i've noticed that the "Orange Papers" and this article below is your reference to AA being a cult or "group think". I also noticed that when you folks think your overwhelming right you will not engage.
I have talked with a few of you off line about A.A. and found a huge ocean of ignorance when it comes to what is A.A., how A.A. operates and how A.A. members conduct themselves.
:shamrock:
Posted by psy.. 01 Dec 2008, 23:32
AA: Cult or Cure?
* Home
* The Library
AA Cult or Cure?
* Preface II
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Chapter 7
* Chapter 8
* Chapter 9
* Chapter 10
* Chapter 11
* Alternatives
* Bibliography
* Index
Is A.A. a Cult?
(conclusions)
Is Alcoholics Anonymous a cult? That's almost as difficult to answer as the question, "What is a cult?" The difficulty is compounded by the fact that AA has very close ties—indeed, incestuous relationships—with a large number of "related facilit[ies]" and "outside enterprise." These include the NCADD, ASAM, and the 93% of all inpatient alcoholism treatment facilities that utilize AA indoctrination as part—usually the centerpiece—of their programs, and that are for the most part staffed and controlled by 12-stepping "professionals." I believe that these front groups should be considered part of, or at least extensions of, AA, just as I believe that groups that are staffed and controlled by Communist Party members, and that advance Communist Party ideology, should be considered part of, or at least ex-tensions of, the Communist Party.
Both AA and the Communists learned long ago that the setting up of front groups is a convenient means of attracting or influencing the unwary, advancing their own agendas, and avoiding both criticism and responsibility (for the actions of their front groups). Here, I intend to hold AA responsible for the actions of its front groups. I will, however, at times maintain a distinction between what Vince Fox refers to as "communal AA" (free meetings and fellowship of the type described in Chapter 1) and what he refers to as "institutional AA" (the 12-step treatment industry). Where I make no distinction between the two, my remarks apply equally to both.
Rather than attempt to determine whether AA (communal or institutional) fits the very broad definitions of a "cult" offered at the beginning of the previous chapter—definitions which fit many mainstream religions and political organizations, as well as groups generally conceded to be cults—it seems more appropriate to determine how many of the characteristics of the destructive cults can be found in AA.
Considering in order the 21 criteria listed in the previous chapter:
1) Is AA religiously oriented? Unequivocally yes .
While many AA members would assert that AA is a "spiritual" organization rather than a religious one, there is little doubt that they are simply parroting a rote assertion common in AA. In fact, AA's religiosity is so obvious that even the courts have taken note of it and appeals courts have consistently ruled (in cases challenging mandated attendance) that AA is a religious organization. One lower-court case is illustrative; as the court stated in a 1984 Wisconsin ruling (Grandberg V. Ashland County):
Alcoholics Anonymous materials . . . and the testimony of the witness established beyond a doubt that religious activities, as defined in constitutional law, were a part of the treatment program. The distinction between religion and spirituality is meaningless, and serves merely to confuse the issue.
It's also important to remember that AA was founded by Bill Wilson, an enthusiastic member of the evangelical Christian Oxford Group Movement, and by Dr. Bob Smith (also a member of the Oxford Groups) who insisted that new members get down on their knees and pray Christian prayers with him. In addition, and significantly, AA (before it adopted its name) operated as part of the Oxford Groups in both New York and Akron; and in Akron, birthplace of AA, members of what was to become AA identified themselves as the "alcoholic squadron of the Akron Oxford Group" during AA's formative years.
As well, AA literature is filled with references to "God" and a "Higher Power," and the so-called Big Book's chapter, "We Agnostics," concludes with the words, "God restored us to our right minds . . . When we drew near to Him He disclosed Himself to us!" Further, the 12 steps, the core of AA's program, are simply a codification of Oxford Group principles; and fully half of the steps mention "God," "Him," or a "Power greater than ourselves."
In the early days of AA, the religious nature of the AA "program," as outlined in the "Big Book," was openly acknowledged. Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick's review of the "Big Book," which AA submitted unsuccessfully to the New York Herald Tribune, and later managed to have printed in several religious
periodicals, states, "the core of their whole procedure is religious." Even today, a large majority of AA meetings end with the Lord's Prayer.
In every respect, AA's orientation passes the "duck" test: If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. In this case, the "duck" is AA's religious nature.
2) Is AA irrational, does it discourage skepticism and rational thinking? Again, yes.
AA's emphasis is primarily on emotional experience ("spiritual awakening") and "overcoming" doubts en route to spiritual "knowledge." In the "We Agnostics" chapter of the "Big Book," Bill Wilson approvingly cites a former agnostic who "humbly offered himself to his Maker—then he knew."
AA aphorisms are even more revealing. Two common ones are "Your best thinking got you here" and "Utilize, don't analyze." It would be hard to think of more virulently anti-intellectual epigrams. They're all too similar to the Moonie slogan, "You Think Too Much." The distance between these slogans and their more famous counterpart, "Ignorance Is Strength," from Orwell's 1984, is frighteningly short.
Another popular AA saying is "Fake it until you make it." In other words, members should sit on their doubts and mouth accepted AA wisdom until they feel comfortable doing it. This sounds more like a recipe for brainwashing than a recipe for "spiritual awakening."
Any doubts about this matter can be quickly resolved by a visit to almost any AA meeting. Newcomers who express doubts are normally assailed with bits of wisdom such as those just cited, and are almost always assured that doubting leads to drinking.
3) Is AA dogmatic? Unfortunately, yes.
It's difficult to label as dogmatic an organization in which the most important guiding principles (the 12 steps) are only "suggestions." But despite this disclaimer, a great many AA members are extremely dogmatic. They regard the 12 steps with the reverence that a fundamentalist has for the Ten Commandments, and they regard the "Big Book" as a funda-mentalist would the Bible.
Anyone doubting this should attend a few AA meetings. At most meetings, even mild criticism of the steps or the "Big Book" will be met with sarcasm, anger, and put-downs. For AA true believers, the steps and the "Big Book" are received wisdom (which, indeed, Bill Wilson believed them to be); and they are to be blindly followed, not questioned.
Further confirmation of AA's dogmatism is provided by its attitude toward the very many alcohol abusers who investigate AA but can't stomach its program. Rather than attempt to see why so many alcohol abusers reject AA (remember, these are oftentimes desperate individuals urgently seeking help), and whether anything—changes in the AA program, referral to the many existing alternative programs—can be done to help them, AA does nothing to help these vulnerable people, and instead blames them for rejecting AA, maintaining that the reason they can't stand AA is their "character defects," their lack of "ho
nesty," or their lack of a genuine desire to stop drinking. This happens In every single case. And there have been millions. To its dogmatic members, the AA program is perfect; the problem lies solely with those who reject it.
This is the attitude of a callous, dogmatic religious sect, not that of a rational, humanistic organization concerned with helping those afflicted by what it insists is a deadly "illness."
4) Do AA members have a "chosen people" mentality? Yes.
Given that AA members believe that they alone have The Truth as regards overcoming alcoholism, it would be surprising if they didn't have such a mentality. The callous put-downs of those who come to AA for help and reject it provide confirmation of this, as do the common put-downs of sober former alcohol abusers who reject AA as "dry drunks." Further, one often hears comments at meetings about being "better than well" or the like —testimony to the miraculous effects of working the steps in producing human beings happier and more spiritually developed than "normies."
Granted, the "chosen people" mentality of AA members is relatively mild in comparison with that of members of cults such as the Moonies and Hare Krishnas, but it's still undeniably there.
5) Does AA elevate its own ideology over experience, observation and logic? Again, unquestionably yes.
AA has The Truth, and it assiduously ignores the mountain of evidence that AA is quite probably entirely ineffective as a means of alcoholism treatment, and that AA may actually do more harm than good. This evidence comes from the controlled studies of AA's effectiveness, as well as from AA's own analysis of its triennial membership surveys. (See Chapter 9 for a detailed discussion of these matters.)
The alarm bells would have gone off inside any rational organization when the first controlled study was published in 1961. But AA ignored it, and has continued to ignore it, just as it ignored the more sophisticated, more convincing controlled study published in 1980. AA has also ignored its own analysis of its triennial membership surveys, which shows that the rate of recovery via AA is almost certainly no better than the rate of spontaneous remission, and may in fact be worse. Instead of taking a serious look at all of this data, AA and its supporters ignore it while hypocritically presenting AA as the only road to recovery.i This, quite obviously, is the posture of an ideology-driven cult.
6) Is AA separatist? Yes, but only somewhat more so than other special interest groups.
AA members are self-selected "alcoholics," as opposed to the supposedly 90% of the population who are non-alcoholics. The more extreme outward signs of separatism—the taking of new names and the adoption of distinctive dress or other alterations in personal appearance—are, however, absent.
The one area in which AA members definitely show signs of separatism is in their use of jargon. As Ken Ragge points out, in AA terms often take on meanings different from their standard English meanings—for instance, "sobriety," rather than merely meaning "unintoxicated," means "a special state of Grace gained by working the Steps and maintaining absolute abstinence. It is characterized by feelings of Serenity and Gratitude. It is a state of living according to God's will, not one's own. It is sanity."ii
7) Does AA see itself as the exclusive holder of the truth? Unfortunately, yes—at least in regard to the treatment of alcohol abuse.
If AA didn't believe this, it wouldn't ignore the evidence pointing to its ineffectiveness (see Chapter 9). As well, while there are a few scattered and unimportant acknowledgements in AA literature that at least the occasional alcohol abuser can recover without AA, at the vast majority of Alcoholics Anonymous meetings newcomers are routinely told that participation in AA and acceptance of the AA "program" (basically the 12 steps) is the only way to overcome an alcohol problem. Compounding this, the same message is frequently delivered by alcoholism "professionals" and "para-professionals" (who are often zealous AA members, some with little if any medical or psychological training) and by the mass media, which uncritically relies upon these "experts" for much of its information on alcoholism.
8) Does AA claim to have special knowledge that will only be revealed to the initiated? A qualified no.
AA makes no claims that it has special knowledge that will be revealed only to those who are "ready for it." But AA does claim that "working a good program" or "working the steps" leads to "serenity" and (at least often) "a spiritual awakening." Thus, these promises are used to induce members to stay in AA and to immerse themselves in its indoctrination program. This seems at least somewhat manipulative, but it's a far cry from the practice of one well-known cult which charges its members tens, sometimes hundreds, of thousands of dollars for ever more "advanced" courses, the eventual payoff of which is that they will be "cleared" of "body thetans"—the evil spirits of beings blown up by hydrogen bombs in volcanos 85 million years ago.
9) Does AA employ mind control techniques? For the most part, in communal AA, no. In institutional AA, yes.
While communal AA does employ threats (of jails, institutions, and death), prayer, and innocuous rituals, such as the chanting of "Keep coming back, it works!" at the end of meetings, these things should not be confused with severe mind control techniques such as exhaustion, mal-nourishment, and hypnotic chanting. Communal AA does nothing to alter its members' consciousness beyond the serving of a mild drug (caffeine) at its meetings, and, beyond admonitions, the use of low-key rituals, sacred texts, and group pressure, it does nothing to control their thoughts—with the significant exception of the use of thought-stopping jargon.
In institutional AA, however, coerced participants are kept very busy, given little time alone, deprived of outside contacts, allowed to read only approved (that is, indoctrination) literature, forced into making false confessions, subjected to attacks, threats, and ridicule for raising questions or making critical comments, and subjected to extreme pressure by a unanimous majority to change their belief systems. Clearly, mind-control is the essence of institutional AA's indoctrination program.
10) Does AA employ thought-stopping language? Yes, but its employment is less stringent than in many religious cults.
As Ken Ragge points out, the function of many AA slogans, cliches and aphorisms is to short-circuit critical thinking.iii The purpose of such slogans as "Keep It Simple, Stupid," "Utilize, don't analyze," "Your best thinking got you here," and "Let go and let God," is to get AA members to stop thinking for themselves and, instead, to accept divine guidance (that is, guidance from AA). And the function of the in-reality-meaningless term "dry drunk" is to discredit critics and apostates. By labeling such troublesome persons "dry drunks," AA members devalue them as persons and can thus conveniently ignore what they say as merely the ravings of "insanity."
But as insidious as this is, it's not to be compared with the hypnotic chanting employed by the Moonies and Hare Krishnas, which in combination with other mind control techniques render their members so debilitated that it requires months if not years for them to fully recover their critical faculties after leaving these cults.
11) Does AA manipulate its members through guilt? Yes.
Guilt is inherent in AA dogma. It's enshrined in the 12 steps with their references to "our wrongs," "our shortcomings," "defects of character" and a "moral inventory." As well, AA members almost invariably suffer intense guilt when they drink or go on benders (as a great many do at one time or another), and are quite penitent when they return, and thus very likely to embrace accepted AA wisdom as their one and only hope of "sobriety." (Such "slips" lead to a considerable loss of prestige—whether the "slip" involves a single beer or two fifths of whiskey—which amplifies the unpleasant effects of the guilt incurred by not "working a good program" and drinking.)
But there is no guru-figure or authoritarian hierarchy to manipulate AA's members, no matter how guilty they might feel. So, the AA "program" fosters guilt in abundance, but there is no one to manipulate it for personal advantage. It should be added, though, that AA-induced (or reinforced) guilt does make members feel sinful and fearful, and thus tends to tie them to AA, because temporary relief from their unpleasant feelings is available at meetings.
12) Does AA employ "the cult of confession"? Does it use confession for purification and to tie its members to it? Yes.
Confession in AA comes in four forms: 1) private confession from "pigeon" to sponsor (as "suggest[ed]" in the fifth step); 2) public confession by speakers at AA meetings; 3) public confession ("sharing") by participants at AA meetings; and 4) in institutional AA, false confession.
The purpose of the first type of confession is almost certainly to tie the new member to AA, as it deepens the pigeon's involvement in "working the steps," that is, it deepens his or her participation in AA's sequential indoctrination program. It leads to the next step, and it also (at least often) deepens the relationship with his or her sponsor, the person responsible for over-seeing the indoctrination process.
The second type of confession is an odd one in that speaker's confession is normally boastful and carries not a trace of remorse. The purpose of such a confession is to establish credibility with listeners, thus making them more receptive to the speaker's message. So, this type of confession also serves the purpose of tying both listeners and the speaker (who receives enjoyable positive attention from the audience) to AA.
The third type serves both the "purification" and "tying" functions. It allows the confessing member to bare his soul and relieve his guilt feelings; and the acceptance that those making such confessions find binds them more closely to AA.
The fourth type is common in institutional AA. Many unwilling individuals are coerced into attending 12-step treatment centers (usually by the courts, their employers, or professional organizations to which they belong). When such unwilling persons are in treatment, tremendous pressure is often brought to bear to force them to confess that they are "alcoholics," even though they often do not believe themselves to be. Many of the persons so pressured have little choice but to knuckle under and make false confessions.
They are also often forced to exaggerate the bad incidents in their drinking histories, or to make up incidents out of whole cloth. The purpose of these confessions is exactly the same as the false confessions obtained by Red Chinese "thought reformers": the confessions signify the submission of the clients/prisoners to their coercers, and they confirm the coercers' ideology.
13) Does AA have a charismatic leader? No, although it does have dead saints.
To his credit, Bill Wilson never sought dictatorial control of AA, and in fact—through devising AA's anarchist form of organization—did much to ensure that no individual could ever take control of AA. Wilson was content to be a first among equals while alive, though especially toward the end of his life he was the object of unsought veneration.
At present, Bill Wilson and, to a lesser extent, "Dr. Bob" are revered by most AA members, and Wilson's writings have attained the status of scripture in the minds of many. But, thanks largely to Bill Wilson, there is no charismatic leader of Alcoholics Anonymous, and it is exceedingly unlikely that there ever will be.
14) Does AA have an authoritarian, hierarchical structure? As for communal AA, definitely no. As for institutional AA, yes.
Thanks largely to the 12 traditions, communal AA is a model of anarchist organization. All AA groups are autonomous. There is no hierarchy giving orders to members, and it is very clear that the relatively few paid staffers are there to "serve," not to rule. Significantly, the structure of AA is often pictured as an inverted pyramid, with the members on top and the paid staff on the bottom.
The situation is different in institutional AA. There, almost all entities are corporations or government agencies, which, of course, are hierarchically organized and authoritarian in nature, with some giving orders and others taking them. In institutional AA, the staffers are there to rule (i.e., to force clients to accept AA and its premises), not to serve; they hold a great deal of power over their coerced clients.
15) Does AA insist on submission of the individual to the "will of God"? As for communal AA, yes and no. As for institutional AA, yes.
A quick reading of the 12 steps leaves little doubt about AA's position. Step 3 states, "[We] made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God," although it does add the qualifying phrase, "as we understood Him." Another important qualification is that making this decision is officially only a "suggestion," as are the other steps. In practice, however, at a very large majority of AA meetings a great deal of pressure is placed on members to embrace this and the other "suggestions." (And in institutional AA, the steps—with their submission of the individual to the will of God—are simply crammed down clients' throats.) Those who do not accept the 12 steps are frequently made to feel unwelcome at meetings. There is even a common put-down term for such members: "one steppers." This is a bad situation, though it would be far worse but for the official AA positions that the steps are only suggestions and that the only requirement for AA membership is a desire to stop drinking.
Another very important limiting factor is the fact that there is no charismatic leader, authoritarian hierarchy, or priest caste in AA to act as interpreter(s) of "God's will." There are many members who attempt to take on the priest's role, but, fortunately, thanks to AA's structure and official positions, their influence is somewhat limited. (Of course, in institutional AA, the paid staff often take on this role—at least to the extent of demanding acceptance of the 12 steps and other AA doctrines, and using coercion to force that acceptance—given that a great many of them are true believers and are in positions of authority over their institutions' clients.)
16) Is AA self-absorbed? Absolutely.
In his discussion of the failure of the Washingtonian Society (a 19thcentury self-help organization similar in some ways to AA) in Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, Bill Wilson states, "Had they been left to themselves, and had they stuck to their one goal, they might have found the rest of the answer."iv The implication, of course, is that AA has the answer.
Because AA believes that it has the answer to alcoholism, AA has shown a marked disinterest in experimental and clinical studies of alcoholism and alcoholism treatment, and in the many non-12-step approaches to alcohol abuse, some of which show considerable promise. Significantly, none of the dozens of books and pamphlets published by AA deal with these important topics. They all deal with AA itself, or, in a few cases, with day-by-day ways to remain sober.
Because of its organizational principles, AA has never contributed a dime toward medical research on the causes and the treatment of alcoholism. Further, because Alcoholics has the answer, AA as a whole has not only shown no interest in alternative alcohol-abuse treatments, but many AA members and front groups have shown marked hostility to both professional, non-12-step treatment and to nonreligious self-help programs such as Moderation Management, Rational Recovery, S.M.A.R.T. Recovery, and Secular Organizations for Sobriety.
While I was living in San Francisco in the late 1980s, S.O.S. members who put up flyers at AA hangouts told me that the flyers were ripped down very quickly. (None of the flyers attacked AA; they all simply advertised S.O.S. meetings.) One S.O.S. member told me that before finding S.O.S., he had phoned the local AA intergroup office to see if they could refer him to S.O.S., and the AA volunteer who answered told him, "I don't know how to contact them, and I wouldn't tell you if I did." The S.O.S. newsletter is filled with reports of similar and even more offensive incidents. This type of petty harassment evidently continues to the present, as a few days before sending this book to press I read on S.M.A.R.T. Recovery's web site of similar recent incidents involving SMART flyers.
As for institutional AA, for many years its "medical" experts have conducted a jihad against controlled drinking programs for alcohol abusers (and against researchers who advocate such programs—see Chapter 8 for details), despite a great deal of evidence that such programs work well—almost certainly better than AA.v One still frequently hears 12-stepping "experts" piously proclaiming, without a shred of evidence, that mere advocacy of controlled drinking causes alcoholics to drink themselves to death.vi
What makes all of this especially harmful is that (as was shown in Chapter 7) AA is, at best, an effective treatment program for only a tiny fraction of alcohol abusers. Through its self-absorption (and the ofttrumpeted claim that AA is not only effective, but the only effective treatment program for alcoholism), AA is contributing nothing toward the understanding of alcohol abuse, and, under its own terms, is engaging in a vicious game of blame-the-victim (of what it insists is a deadly "illness") with the approximately 95% of "alcoholics" who are not members of AA. (According to AA, the reasons that they are not members of AA are their "shortcomings," "defects of character," and lack of "honesty.")
The attitudes and behaviors exhibited by AA toward clinical and experimental research and toward alternative treatment programs are not those of a rational organization dedicated to the effective treatment of alcoholism. Rather, AA's attitudes and behaviors are those of a dogmatic, self-absorbed religious cult.
Another facet of AA's self-absorption is seen in its members' attitudes toward the high aspirations some of their number held before they joined AA. Within AA, members generally view such aspirations as contributing to alcoholism, because they believe that lofty goals lead to frustration and feelings of failure, which in turn lead to drinking. Because of this, AA members normally offer very little encouragement of each others' interests and pursuits outside of AA, and sometimes actively discourage non-AA-related aspirations, as Dr. Margaret Bean comments, "This can set up a regressive spiral in which no one suggests that a member can or should strive for anything more challenging or interesting than sobriety."vii And the proper way to strive for sobriety is within, and only within, AA itself.
17) Does AA have dual purposes? As for both communal and institutional AA, yes.
Communal AA presents itself as the answer to alcoholism, and thus a great many persons come to it for help in overcoming alcohol problems. But AA's purpose is not to help individuals overcome alcohol problems; rather, it's to indoctrinate them into AA's 12-step religious program. If the true purpose of AA was to help problem drinkers to overcome alcohol problems, AA would be greatly concerned about the research evidence indicating that AA is ineffective. One would further expect that AA would initiate studies of its own effectiveness versus that of other self-help groups and versus that of various forms of professional treatment. As well, one would expect that AA would recognize that one size does not fit all and would gladly refer individuals who come to it, but who don't like it, to other self-help groups. AA does none of these things. AA's sole purpose is to "carry this [religious] message to alcoholics."
Institutional AA goes even further. Many of its members make a great deal of money from utilizing AA's religious indoctrination program in a medical setting. The costliness and very questionable effectiveness of this kind of "treatment" seems not to bother them a whit. The evidence that 12-step inpatient treatment does no good and may in fact be harmful (see Chapters 7 and 8) is of no matter to them. They have The Truth, and they're quite content to go on making money from it.
18) Does Alcoholics Anonymous economically exploit its members? As for communal AA, no. As for institutional AA, yes.
All donations to communal AA are purely voluntary; there are no membership dues; and AA even places a cap of $1000 per year on individual donations to the organization by its members; and it will not accept any donations by non-members. Another example of communal AA's nonexploitive economic practices is provided by its literature: its books are very cheaply priced, with most selling for less than half of what comparable commercially published books would sell for, and its pamphlets are freely given away at meetings.
Institutional AA, on the other hand, charges many thousands of dollars to its clients for what was once so freely given (the AA program). That program is the centerpiece of most inpatient alcoholism treatment programs, and though they do provide some additional services, the high prices that they charge hardly seem justified.viii The insurance industry apparently agrees with this assessment, and it has become increasingly reluctant to pay for 12-step inpatient treatment in recent years, with the result that occupancy rates and length of stay have both declined considerably over the last decade. This is hardly surprising given that the costs for a 28-day stay at a cheap facility run to about $10,000, and most institutions charge considerably more than that. For example, two swank Tucson-area 12-step treatment centers both charge approximately $20,000 for a 28-day stayix; and others charge far more.
19) Does AA employ deceptive recruiting techniques? Yes, arguably.
AA does no recruiting whatsoever in the normal sense of the word, that of actively seeking new members. But it could be argued that AA (or at least many of its members) does engage in deceptive recruiting by falsely representing AA as the only effective treatment for alcoholism. At newcomers' meetings, AA members almost invariably repeat the lies that alcoholism is a progressive, fatal disease, that alcohol abusers have no control after they take the first drink, and that AA is the only alternative to jails, institutions, or death. It should be emphasized, though, that most if not all of those who present this misinformation believe what they say, and are not engaging in deliberate deception as a recruiting tool.
As for 12-step treatment facilities, their ads commonly downplay or don't even mention that their primary focus is introduction to and participation in AA. This is understandable given that most people would be reluctant to pay $15,000 or $20,000 for something that is readily available for free. Newcomers lured through such advertising now form a large part of AA's membership. According to AA's 1996 membership survey brochure, 40% of AA members now list introduction at a treatment facility as one of the three "factors most responsible for [their] coming to A.A."
20) Is AA possessive? Does it go to lengths to retain members? No, absolutely not.
AA makes no organizational attempts whatsoever to retain members, and individual members normally do nothing beyond making a few friendly phone calls to other members who haven't shown up at meetings for a few days. In fact, AA's tendency in this area is so contrary to that of most cults that it creates serious problems for researchers attempting to gauge the effectiveness of AA, because of the difficulty of determining membership status. In AA, membership is purely a matter of self-definition; those who say they're members are members. Similarly, due to the extreme and unnecessary emphasis on anonymity within AA, it is next to impossible for anyone (including researchers and service workers within AA) to accurately track AA members.
21) Does AA provide a closed, all-encompassing environment? As for communal AA, no. As for institutional AA, yes.
Communal AA has no live-in facilities, though it does provide a social milieu into which many members plunge when first introduced to AA. This is entirely understandable. Many new members are quite lonely (having driven off friends, lovers, and family while drinking heavily), so the friendliness and acceptance provided by AA is quite attractive to them; in addition, AA provides a "safe" environment (at least at meetings and AA hangouts) in which they won't be tempted to drink.
The closest that communal AA comes to providing a closed, allencompassing environment is the traditional "90 meetings in 90 days" recommendation. Newcomers who follow this recommendation spend many of their waking hours at AA meetings. Additionally, in the larger cities, there is usually at least one AA hangout, and there are often several clubs and other meeting places. Finally, there is an endless amount of AA volunteer work available to those who want to do it—answering the office phone, making 12th-step calls (to "carry the message" to other alcohol abusers), serving as meeting officers or as group service representatives, etc. So, those who want to can easily spend their entire social lives in the world of AA. In fact, members receive much encouragement to immerse themselves in this manner in "the A.A. way of life."
One anonymous member, in a Mensa special interest group publication, describes his plunge into the world of Alcoholics Anonymous:
After sixty days in the hospital, I was permitted to go back to my job . . . There I became an A.A. addict. I went to a meeting almost every night. I volunteered for the intergroup desk so my Saturdays were spent talking to drunks on the phone.
During this time, I progressed from closet atheist, to passive acceptance, to starry-eyed faith and entered that strange world where the creator of the universe was looking after minor problems like my sex life and auto battery.
It occurred to me one day with a jolt that I had begun a life of superstitious ritual. It was a sort of magic formula of prayers, meetings, and shallow talk that was "keeping me sober."
As bad as this is, institutional AA is worse. In its guise as 12-step inpatient treatment facilities, institutional AA provides a textbook example of a closed, all-encompassing environment. As in all such environments, its purpose is ideological indoctrination—in this case, getting clients to embrace the AA "program" and its attendant baggage (the disease model, loss of control, etc.); patients' activities are to a very large extent dictated by the staff; many patients are coerced into being there (as an alternative to job loss, imprisonment, or professional decertification) and must at least feign acceptance of the prescribed ideology; institutions routinely restrict what patients may read to AA materials and related 12-step books and pamphlets; TV-viewing and radio-listening are routinely prohibited or greatly restricted; and clients' contact with those outside the institution is normally prohibited or greatly restricted. The only redeeming feature of the closed, allencompassing environment of institutional AA is that the individuals subjected to it must endure it for a relatively short time—though for some that "short time" can seem like an eternity.
22) Is AA Millenarian? In short, no.
There is not a trace of millenarianism in AA.
23) Does AA employ violence, coercion, and harassment? As for communal AA, no. As for institutional AA, yes—at least as regards coercion.
The use of violence by communal AA is so contrary to AA traditions as to be unthinkable. Communal AA employs no coercion. And to the best of my knowledge, the relatively few incidents of harassment directed against groups such as SMART, which are often perceived as rivals to AA, have been mild—verbal rudeness and the ripping down of flyers—and all of them have been committed by over-zealous individual AA members. As far as I know, not a single incident of harassment of "rival" groups or outside critics has been committed by a paid AA service worker.
The case of dissidents within AA is somewhat different. Within the organization, dissident members (especially atheists) are very much secondclass citizens; they're often scorned and belittled; and they find it virtually impossible to have their views presented in AA's literature. But these things are as nothing compared with the violence, coercion, and harassment em-ployed by many cults.
In institutional AA, matters are very different. Institutional AA does not employ violence, but, within its own precincts, it does employ coercion and harassment. In this regard, it's important to remember that most patients are coerced into attendance. In many cases, their alternative to submitting to institutional AA is job loss, imprisonment, suspension or expulsion (from teams/leagues, in the case of sports figures), or decertification (in the case of medical personnel). In a very real sense, such persons are prisoners of the 12-step treatment ind
ustry. This gives their warders (the paid staff) tremendous leverage over them, and the warders usually take full advantage of that leverage; they customarily exert a great deal of pressure on such unwilling patients, the purpose of which is to break their resistance to AA. If this sounds like a scenario from The Manchurian Candidate, it's hardly surprising.
Conclusions
So, is AA a cult? As seems obvious from the foregoing, the answer will differ if you consider communal AA separately from institutional AA, or if you consider them as a single entity. As regards communal AA, the number of definite "yes" matches to the 23 characteristics listed above was 11, while the number of definite "nos" was 7; as for institutional AA, the number of definite "yeses" was 16, and the number of definite "nos" was only 3.
To put these results in context, I compared the scores achieved by communal and institutional AA with the scores based on my evaluation of five groups often labeled as cults: the Church of Scientology; the People's Temple; Unification Church (the Moonies); Synanon; and Kerista Village. None of these groups scored a "perfect" 23, but some came close. The Moonies came in at 22 "yeses"; the Church of Scientology and the People's Temple came in at 21 "yeses"; and Synanon came in with 20 "yeses." In contrast, the low scorer was Kerista Village, which had a score of 14.
To put these results further in perspective, I chose the ten cult attributes that I consider most important, and for those ten attributes I compared the scores of communal and institutional AA with those of the Church of Scientology, the Moonies, and Kerista Village. The attributes I consider most important are religious orientation; irrationality; dogmatism; mind control techniques; a charismatic leader; a hierarchical, authoritarian structure; submission of the individual to the will of God; economic exploitation; a closed, all-encompassing environment; and the use of violence, coercion, and/or harassment. I assigned the Moonies a score of a "perfect" 10 for these attributes and the Scientologists a score of 9 (their charismatic leader is dead), while Kerista Village came in with a score of 6, institutional AA with a score of 9, and communal AA with a score of 4.
Thus, if you consider communal AA separately from institutional AA, you're left with little choice but to conclude that AA isn't a cult—though it comes close, and does have many dangerous, cult-like tendencies. But if you regard institutional AA as an extension of communal AA and consider them as one, you're inexorably drawn to the conclusion that AA is a cult. Communal/institutional AA definitely isn't in the same league with vicious, destructive cults such as the Moonies and the People's Temple, but it does display an alarmingly high number of similarities to such groups. All in all, communal/institutional AA merits the description given to it by Stanton Peele: "Cult Lite."x
Finally,it's worth noting that while brazenly destructive cults such as the People's Temple and Heaven's Gate have considerably worse effects upon their individual members than AA has upon its individual members, the commonly cited religious cults have very limited numbers of followers (despite self-serving gross over estimates) and have very little influence in society at large, while AA is a mass organization with a very extensive hidden structure that has tremendous influence in society. Thus, it could well be that AA does more harm to society—and to far greater numbers of people—than all other religious cults combined.
1. A good example of this is provided by George Vaillant, in his influential The Natural History of Alcoholism (London: Harvard University Press, 1983). In his book, Vaillant strongly recommends that alcohol abusers be referred to AA, despite his own research evidence which indicates that AA participation at best does no good, and that relapse rates are higher for AA participants than for those who quit on their own.
2. More Revealed, by Ken Ragge. Henderson, Nevada: Alert Publishing, 1992, p. 137.
i
3. Ibid., pp. 127-138.
ii4. Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, by Bill Wilson. New York: Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, 1982, p. 178.
iii5. For an enlightening discussion of this holy war against controlled drinking and its advocates, see "Denial—of Reality and Freedom—in Addiction Research and Treatment," by Stanton Peele. Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 5(4): 149-166, 1986. Also available at http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/peele/lib/denial.html (http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/peele/lib/denial.html) with a 1996 ad-dendum.
6. See, for instance, "The American Psychiatric Association's attacks on Moderation Management—does the APA oppose moderate drinking treatment goals?," by Stanton Peele, at http://www..frw.uva.cedro/peele/debate/woody.html (http://www..frw.uva.cedro/peele/debate/woody.html)
iv7. "Alcoholics Anonymous," by Dr. Margaret Bean. Psychiatric Annals/5:3 March 1975, p. 10/86.
8. One expensive service commonly assumed necessary, detoxification, is actually necessary only to a small percentage of long-term, heavy drinkers. According to researcher Vince Fox, only 15% of heavy drinkers experience significant physical withdrawal symptoms when they stop drinking; and withdrawal symptoms are life threatening in only about 25% of those cases. In other words, only about 4% of long-term heavy drinkers experience life-threatening physical withdrawal symptoms. See Addiction, Change & Choice: The New View of Alcoholism, by Vince Fox. Tucson, Arizona: See Sharp Press, 1993, p. 191.
v9. Telephone quotations to the author, July 7, 1997.
vi10. The term is used in Stanton Peele's "Online Library" web site's "Controversy" page:
http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/peele/debate (http://www.frw.uva.nl/cedro/peele/debate)
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Danny.............
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
What would be a good treatment model for alcoholics, provided it does not involve mind control techniques by past/present members of the communist party?
You just proved my point....A ocean of ignorance based upon no first hand knowledge. Keep reading and drinking my man...lol :shamrock: :shamrock:
Danny,....
-
What would be a good treatment model for alcoholics, provided it does not involve mind control techniques by past/present members of the communist party?
12 steps programs 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrI ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo&feature=related)
12 steps programs 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5L ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5LJgk&feature=related)
12 steps programs 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3 ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY&feature=related)
Why AA doesn't work for over 97% of people who join
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ_6flmL ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZ_6flmLysc&feature=related)
Bill W Cult leader speaks of "The only way" AA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmFjszz ... re=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNmFjszzrKo&feature=related)
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Yeah, that's what I want to do discuss A.A. with you Joel with the premise of your argument is the relevance of"you tube" skits.
Just shows your motives towards discussing A.A. Like I said keep reading and drinking, you'll find it.
Danny........
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
http://www.spiritualriver.com/what-is-the-success-rate-of-recovery-in-aa/
What is the Success Rate of Recovery in AA?
What is the success rate of recovery in AA? That depends entirely on who you ask, and on exactly what you are measuring.
For example, there is documentation that proves “early AA” had a success rate of about 75 percent.
On the other hand, there are some people who claim that AA actually has a negative rate of recovery, and that people actually relapse in AA who might have recovered “spontaneously” through spontaneous remission of the disease.
Finally, there are a large number of estimates out there that put the success rate of recovery at around 3 to 5 percent.
But it is indeed a tricky thing to measure. For one, what exactly are we measuring? Complete abstinence for life? Alcoholics who successfully make it to one year sober? What exactly determines “success” when we are talking about success rates? This is the first half of the measuring problem.
The other half of the problem is that it is very difficult to obtain truly accurate results across a large sample. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is the anonymity that the program is based on. Add that to the shame and guilt associated with relapse, and you have the potential to seriously overestimate the success rate based on an anonymous survey.
What does AA themselves have to say? Here is a piece of an actual memo from the Alcoholics Anonymous GSO (General Services Office), based on an analysis of a survey period that ran for 12 years:
:shamrock:
Who is saying this was done by the GSO A.A. this is a inaccurate statement Joel. A.A. I promise has never conducted a survey on this, it would totally go against it's principles. Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company is full of shit. This was definitely a independent survey. Which they tried to tie to the GSO, which many have done before.
:shamrock:
“After just one month in the Fellowship, 81% of the new members have already dropped out. After three months, 90% have left, and 95% have discontinued attendance inside one year.” (Kolenda, 2003, Golden Text Publishing Company).
Of course, this doesn’t really tell the whole story, as many people will leave after AA after being first introduced to it, and then later return once they have truly been beaten by their alcoholism. Most people who are a success story in AA tell of how they struggled–sometimes for years–going in and out of AA before they finally “got it.”
On both sides of this issue, people are very passionate
If you follow the 2 links at the beginning of this article, you’ll see that one is definitely pro-AA, and the other is vehemently anti-AA. One is claiming up to a 95% success rate, while the other is claiming AA is actually detrimental and has a negative success rate (lower than spontaneous remission). And you’ll also notice that both people are very passionate and firm believers in the stance they are taking. Why such a discrepancy here?
I believe the reason is that AA is effective for some, but it is clearly not for everyone. It is not a one-size-fits-all program. There are plenty of people who have achieved success and meaningful sobriety in AA. There are also those who have honestly gave it there best shot, only to eventually relapse and die. This is unfortunate, and it begs the question: “What are the alternatives?”
Unfortunately, there aren’t a whole lot. Yes, there are a few out there, but they are spread few and far between, and there are many disadvantages with all of them. While many of the alternatives to AA claim to have superior success rates, their method of measurement suffers from the same flaws as AA, and their is very little widespread support in these programs.
If you are on the fence about going to AA, here is what I suggest you do: Ignore the success rates you hear about and give it a chance. Do this knowing that AA is the single biggest support system of recovery in the world. The program may not be perfect, but it’s the best our planet has. The alternatives might talk a big game, but they don’t have meetings in every city in the world. AA does. You can find support just about anywhere. And it’s technically free to boot.
Here’s another suggestion: find someone in AA who has multiple years of sobriety and ask them what the success rate is for AA. They will likely tell you that they don’t care. It works for them.
Action items – What does all this mean for you?
1) Give AA a chance, because the meetings are everywhere and therefore the level of support is mind-boggling.
2) Don’t get stuck in thinking there is only one path to recovery – that is NOT TRUE. There are many paths.
3) Stay open. Regardless of what you choose, implement the spiritual principles into your life. Practice gratitude.
:shamrock:
Who is more successful with recovery we (A.A.) have never been concerned with debating that issue, it is trivial at best to hash out who is the big man on the hill of recovery. If you really want to know who has the most success it is organized
church. Baptist, Catholics, Methodists....ect. Look it up.....for all you God un-fearing folks...lol
Danny.....
-
Danny,
I am trying to present both viewpoints from those who oppose AA and those who support AA. Ask me what I personally think about AA. You might be surprised.
OK I can dig that. Why are you playing both sides I put the topic out there and I'm asking people for their honest experience or I'll settle for their opinion. Because I'll tell ya there is a lot of misinformation out there on fornits from people that don't even have one clue about what their talking about. Sure I can, "cut, copy, paste and post" my ass off. But what I am posting is not my opinion or experience it is someone else. AA is not some opinion pole, most of the folks that come to AA have been through the treatment regimen. They are beat up in so many ways, what they are looking for is a place to land. That is safe, no pressure. I don't know what"AA" you folks are talking about but keep drinking that "Group Think, Communist, Brainwashing Kool- Aid".
I sit with through-out a month at least 60 members that have come from our industry and our making something with their lives
which AA had a part in their happiness.
AA is nothing more then a Design for Living. AA (GSO) does not hold itself responsible for the actions of its members.
Tradition 2, " For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority-a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders (GSO and rotating committees @ local levels) are but trusted servants; they do not govern.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Danny, I offer my apologies. My approach may have not been the best but I was trying to present viewpoints on both sides. I will keep my personal beliefs short and simple. When I was working in Galveston Texas, I knew a man who was sober for more than 15 years. He spoke highly of AA. He took advantage of an opportunity to take on a new perspective through AA and become successful. This person was also working at a treatment center helping those with alcohol addictions. In addition, he was running his own business. There are many success stories like these. People, not all on this website, have negative views towards religion. As a result, they focus on the negative and don't acknowledge the success stories. It takes allot of will power to stay sober, especially those who are going through recovery.
Thanks Joel,
I am not looking necessarily looking for endorsements or opposing views like I said just honest debate. AA is based upon Christian Judea principles yet it takes a more spiritual tack then a religious. You develop your own concept of a God (higher power) which is why there are Catholics, Muslims, Baptists, Christians, Buddhas, Hindus, Jews ect......attending. Why was it based on the Judea principles because in 1934 there was no book yet just ideas from various sources so Bill, his wife and Bob decided to use the Bible. Well as time went on they wanted to be sure not to exclude anybody for any reason so they put the Bible down and proceeded on. I am glad they did we would not be what we are today.
Folks nothing is perfect, but it is a large stretch to compare AA or categorize AA as brainwashing. Because then why don't we say our parents, bosses, politicians, fathers, mothers, families when does it stop. Why I am having a hard time with AA and my other examples I could walk away. I wasn't forced to listen or participate.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-intro.html)
Introduction
by A. Orange
These essays, which have ended up pretty much making up a whole book, began as my attempt to clarify my own thinking about A.A., and to explain to others why I felt that there was something wrong with people trying to shove Alcoholics Anonymous on patients. I had signed up for a course of outpatient "alcoholism treatment", but ended up getting something more like "Introduction to Cult Religion 101," where most of the "course of treatment" consisted of compulsory attendance of Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous 12-Step meetings, and "group therapy" sessions where xeroxed copies of A.A. and N.A. literature was handed out and discussed by a 12-Step true-believer group leader, someone who just assumed that of course everyone who recovers will do it at 12-Step meetings...
I started out with a very positive view of Alcoholics Anonymous. Like most people, I had only heard good things about A.A., and thought that it was just a wonderful self-help group where alcoholics got together to give each other moral support and advice in quitting drinking.
I began to get the funny feeling that there was something wrong, that something didn't quite add up right. For instance, in a "group therapy" session, I mentioned the fact that a dozen years earlier, I had quit drinking, all on my own, and stayed quit for over three years. The counselor declared that I had not had a period of "recovery," that I had only been "abstaining," because "I had not been dealing with any issues." The counselor had not bothered to ask about my past, other than to ask how many A.A. meetings I had gone to before (only 4, ever), so he had no way of knowing whether I had dealt with any "issues." He simply assumed that I had not, and declared that I had not. He was wrong, totally wrong. You don't just quit and stay quit for three years without dealing with all of the issues, problems, and hassles of real life. Nobody gets a free 3-year vacation from all of their problems just by abstaining from both beer and A.A. meetings. (Heck, that would be a great recovery program if you could do that...) Then, when I wanted to debate that point, he changed the subject and wouldn't discuss it.
Only later did I learn that such behavior is typical of properly-indoctrinated A.A. true believers. They will always declare that you are not "in recovery" if you are not attending their Twelve-Step meetings and doing their Twelve Steps. You are "only abstaining" from drinking alcohol, or "only dry", but not "sober".
That may seem like a minor point, but when you are fighting for your life, you don't want to find out, half-way through the treatment program, that the counselor is an irrational religious fanatic with his own agenda. That feels like being in a jet airliner, cruising at 40,000 feet, and suddenly discovering that the pilots are drunk and crazy, and that you are on your own when it comes to safely flying that airplane.
Or, after September 11, it feels like discovering that the airplane has been hijacked by crazy religious fanatics, and where they are steering the airplane isn't where you want to go. And, where the airplane is really going is not the destination that was printed on the ticket that you bought. The plane's new destination is their idea of "the Will of God" and "religious glory".
When I went to my second A.A. meeting ever, about 15 years earlier, I was in the middle of detoxing, and in very ragged shape because I had spent most of the previous night in (unexpected) D.T.s while quitting drinking for the first time. A woman there advised me to eat lots of ice cream to soothe my extremely painful stomach cramps, and to drink lots and lots of orange juice to help restore my electrolyte balance. Now, when I repeated that advice in "group therapy", the "counselor" stopped me with "Trying to get intellectual on us now, are you?" Apparently, for him, using any words more sophisticated than a sixth-grade education was apparently "getting intellectual".
The A.A. slogan is, of course, "Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
(--Which apparently really means, "Stay Simple and Stupid.")
Likewise, that 12-Step 'counselor' went non-linear when another client said that he was reading Jack Trimpey's "The Small Book".
"What?! Isn't that the one without the Higher Power?!"
Then he told us that Rational Recovery's AVRT technique (Addictive Voice Recognition Therapy) is just so complex and difficult that you will die before you figure it out, so don't mess with it.
Not! AVRT is actually just a process of recognizing the thoughts that are the voice of the Addiction Monster, aka the Beast (the base brain, really), as it tempts you to take a drink. It is pathetically easy, once you get the hang of it. It is just like those Walt Disney cartoons with Donald Duck having a little devil on one shoulder, and a little angel on the other, and the little devil is whispering into Donald's ear, "Smoke! Drink! It will be fun!"
Children can understand that cartoon, but my A.A.-indoctrinated counselor said that recognizing that situation as it is happening is much too difficult for you or I (or him) to do, so Rational Recovery is confusing people into drinking themselves to death.
I continued going to A.A. and N.A. meetings, and continued to overlook the goofy stuff. Some people were obviously pretty far out there on the religious angle. I thought that was a bit much — I'm not into public displays of religiosity — but I could live with it, because I'm not an agnostic or an atheist. When people were saying things that were obviously crazy, I just thought, "Well, whatever. If believing that stuff helps them to keep from drinking, then okay, any port in a storm."
Then, a friend remarked that some people had accused A.A. of being a cult. That got me to thinking. Then I stumbled across Charles Bufe's book, Alcoholics Anonymous, Cult or Cure?, in the public library, and that was it. The dam burst, and a giant wall of water swept across the landscape.
So I read a lot of books and articles, both pro and con, and did a good bit of investigating, as well as attending a whole lot of those mandatory Twelve-Step meetings, both Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
I came to the conclusion that Alcoholics Anonymous is really just a cult religion, one that passes off its proselytizing under the guise of alcoholism treatment, in just the same way as the Church of Scientology sells its cultish psycho-babble and techno-babble nonsense as self-improving psychotherapy. And Narcotics Anonymous is just another clone of A.A.. And so are all of the other 12-Step "self-help groups."
If there is one sentence that sums up my feelings about Bill Wilson's teachings most, a feeling that keeps popping up when I examine the stupid and insane things that Bill Wilson wrote, it is this sentence from one of the essays:
"This is just so typical of Bill's insanity: everything he says almost rings true, it almost has some truth in it, you can see what he is getting at and almost agree with it, but there is just something a little bit off about all of it."
For example, Bill Wilson talks at length about the need to be freed from ego, the need to be freed from "the bondage of self." Now, liberation from ego is a great thing, if the student can accomplish it. It is a magnificent spiritual accomplishment, the culmination of a lifetime of training and preparation. Many spiritual schools teach techniques for doing it, like the Sufis, Zen Buddhists, and various yogis and swamis. But Mr. Wilson's methods are ineffective and harmful to people. He makes students wallow in guilt and shame, and grinds their faces in the mud. That doesn't work, it only makes the students neurotic. It is really just very common cultish guilt induction disguised as some kind of self-improving spiritual training. But hey, "Freeing the students from ego" sounds great on the surface.
Likewise, Wilson repeatedly declared that all alcoholics must be rid of selfishness:
"Selfishness, self-centeredness! That, we think, is the root of our troubles."
"Above everything, we alcoholics must be rid of this selfishness. We must, or it kills us!"
— The Big Book, 3rd Edition, William G. Wilson, Chapter 5, page 62.
And:
"To be vital, faith must be accompanied by self sacrifice and unselfish, constructive action."
— The Big Book, 3rd Edition,, William G. Wilson, Chapter 7, page 93.
But you will find out that what Wilson really means by that is that you must spend all of your time recruiting and indoctrinating new members for Alcoholics Anonymous.
Most of the rest of the program turns out to be equally useless, or worse. It wastes the students' time with useless superstitious garbage, while telling them that it is giving them some good therapy. A.A. says that it is "Spiritual, not religious," but it is really "Superstitious, not religious."
A.A. assures the students that they will get good results from working the program, if they are willing to go to any length to get sobriety, and if they really try, but the truth is that they almost invariably will not get the promised results. A.A. has a failure rate that ranges from 95% to 100%. One of the most enthusiastic boosters of Alcoholics Anonymous is Professor George E. Vaillant of Harvard University, who is also a member of the Board of Trustees of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., which means that he is one of the leaders of Alcoholics Anonymous. Well, Professor Vaillant showed by his own 8-year-long test of A.A.-based treatment programs that A.A. was worse than useless: it didn't help the alcoholics any more than no treatment at all, and it had the highest death rate of any treatment program tested — leaving nearly one-third of the patients dead. While trying to prove that Alcoholics Anonymous treatment works, Vaillant succeeded in proving that A.A. kills. (And, unbelievable as it may seem, he still wants to send all alcoholics to A.A. anyway, "to get an attitude change by confessing their sins to a high-status healer.")
I think the thing that really gets to me the most, the thing that angers me the most, is how almost everybody connected with the drug and alcohol treatment industry just assumes that the whole 12-Step program works great, and is the answer to everything, and really does help lots of people. The so-called "counselors" are nothing but disguised cult recruiters who shove their 12-Step religion on everybody they can, and they simply assume that if you are recovering from drug or alcohol problems, then you will of course become a happily-converted member of their 12-Step religion that they won't admit is a religion. And they have the gall to charge your health insurance for their religious proselytizing.
And that is pretty much all of the "help" that people in "recovery" or "treatment" programs get. The treatment programs which are based on the Twelve-Step religion and are run by the Twelve-Step true believers — which means about 93% of all of the drug and alcohol treatment programs in the U.S.A. — do little more than xerox off Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous training (indoctrination) materials and read it to people in "group therapy" sessions, and then send the people to three or more A.A. or N.A. meetings per week (maybe even 90 meetings in 90 days for rapid indoctrination). That unethical behavior is being financed with the public's tax money and health insurance money. And that is a crime.
One young woman whom I couldn't help but like had accumulated 9 months off of alcohol when she relapsed. Her true-believer building manager (where she was housed, in a program,) sentenced her to 90 meetings in 90 days for relapsing. When she cried at a meeting that she was so tired of getting sucked back into drinking, and ending up waking up with strange guys, but she was having a problem with "giving herself completely" to the 12-Step program, one of the resident true believers announced that the answer to all such problems is
"Do The Twelve Steps, Get A Sponsor, and Read The Big Book."
Well, it didn't work. She relapsed repeatedly, and they kicked her out of the program.
The last time I saw her, she was drunk on the streets, and fishing for a guy to buy her drinks. Since she is young, tall, slim, and very pretty, she has no problem getting some guy to buy her an unlimited stream of drinks (in trade, he hopes, for getting her into bed). If she continues on that path, it's only a matter of time before she gets AIDS and dies. What a tragic waste.
I just can't help but think that there must be some better way to handle such problems than a method that is obviously not working, the currently-used 12-Step program. I can't help but think that a lot of people might be better off if they got some other treatment or therapy besides cult religion and voodoo medicine.
So here are some essays on the subject. Enjoy.
P.S.:
This is just too much:
I just learned (mid July 2002) that my former counselor, the one who was such a fanatic at shoving the 12-Step religion on us, the guy who actually inspired this entire Orange Papers project, just got arrested in a big dramatic take-down. They arrested him for two or three counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor — very young minors, like children. And then there was a problem with kiddie porn on the Internet.
Can you believe it? The guy who felt qualified to lecture us about the need for "spirituality" and a "Higher Power" in our personal recovery programs was actually a child pornographer and a pedophile by night.
This whole "recovery movement" is just such a bizarre parade of crazies, lunatics, and losers. When will it ever end?
(And a little voice in my head says, "What else could you expect? They hire from within. The staff are all former patients. The crazies recruit the crazies. The inmates really are running the insane asylum.")
Update: 20 September 2003:
My former 12-Step counselor was convicted on all counts of criminal sexual penetration of a minor and child pornography, and is now serving time at the Snake River Correctional Facility at Ontario, Oregon (near the Oregon/Idaho border).
Update: 17 July 2004:
It just goes on and on. It turns out that the children that the 12-Stepper "counselor" was screwing were his own step-children. And then there was the cocaine. It seems that he had relapsed big time. The police found that he had cocaine stashed in his house, in his car, and even at his place of work — the so-called "treatment center" that I went to. That's quite some drug and alcohol counselor.
The State Health Plan really got their moneys-worth when they paid that clinic to counsel the alcoholics and drug addicts, didn't they?
And can you believe that the clinic is still in business, still "helping" alcoholics and addicts, still poking the addicts with acupuncture needles and still selling the same B.S.?
-
http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-eff ... ant_deaths (http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html#Vaillant_deaths)
What Professor Vaillant, a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. — in other words, one of the highest-ranking A.A. leaders — is candidly, clearly describing is a zero-percent success rate for his A.A.-based treatment program.
The A.A. meetings and the Twelve Steps and all of the rest of A.A. program did not help the alcoholics at all. Zero improvement. Zilch. And it was even worse than no help:
* Look at the "Abstinent or social drinking" and "Improved" columns of Table 8.1. You have to add the numbers together to get the over-all improvement rate for that item. So, for "A.A.", "no treatment", and "other treatment", we get 33%, 32%, and 37% over-all improvement rates, respectively. Those numbers are basically the same. There is no statistically significant difference between 33 and 32 percent, and hardly any between 33 and 37 percent. So A.A. treatment was no better than either "other treatment" or no treatment at all, and conversely, "other treatment" wasn't a whole lot better than either A.A. or "no treatment", either. After two years of A.A. treatment, "other treatment", or "no treatment", roughly two-thirds of the patients in all of those groups were still abusing alcohol. That's a dismal result.
* Look at the "Abstinent or social drinking" and "Improved" columns of Table 8.2. Again, you have to add the numbers together to get the over-all improvement rate for that item. The A.A. "Clinic sample" scored 45 percent improved over-all, while the other programs ranged from 35 to 47 percent. Two of the programs, those in the Bratfos and Voetglin-Broz studies, seem to have been much worse than average, but all of the rest of the programs, including A.A., show approximately the same results. (The Voetglin-Broz study used something called "Conditioned Reflex Treatment". What caused the poor results in the Norwegian Bratfos study is unknown.)
* Look at the "Dead" column of Table 8.2. The A.A.-treated group, the "Clinic sample", with the death rate of 29%, had the highest death rate of any kind of program, significantly higher than all of the other programs.
* And those five people out of the hundred in the A.A.-treated "Clinic sample" who successfully stayed sober for 8 years are just the result of that same old five percent spontaneous remission rate at work, again.
* As Professor Vaillant reported, the A.A. treatment program did not alter the natural history (the usual course) of alcoholism, except for yielding a higher death rate than doing nothing. A.A. did not save the alcoholics; it didn't even help them; it just killed them.
Remember that these terrible numbers were reported by a Trustee of Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc., by a real true believer in A.A., by one of the highest-ranking A.A. insiders, by someone who loves A.A. and was trying hard to make it look good, not by some harsh critic of A.A. who might be suspected of bias, or of fudging the numbers to make A.A. look bad...
Remember this the next time you hear somebody say "Keep coming back! It works! (If you make it work...)"
-
:shamrock:
Who is more successful with recovery we (A.A.) have never been concerned with debating that issue, it is trivial at best to hash out who is the big man on the hill of recovery. If you really want to know who has the most success it is organized
church. Baptist, Catholics, Methodists....ect. Look it up.....for all you God un-fearing folks...lol
Danny.....
This isn't about who's the 'big man' on the recovery hill. It's about lying to people, saying that AA "works", that it will "save your life", that it's not religious, that people don't need their meds, that they should divorce their spouse for not supporting AA enough etc. etc. etc.
I have no problem with people using AA as a social support group. A place to find people who are struggling with the same issue. I DO have major problems with the Big Book, sponsors and this hero worship of Bill Wilson and Dr. Bob and AA in general. Have you ever tried to criticize or even ask skeptical questions at an AA meeting or of a sponsor? I have, many times and I was promptly told not to 'ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'. I was told that to question AA or any of it's dogma was 'signing my own death warrant' (sound familiar?). It may not be a cult, per se.....but it sure does have most of the characteristics. Most of which use scare tactics and emotional blackmail as their weapons of choice.
I've also seen many, MANY people come into AA who, IMHO, were NOT alcoholics but were convinced by the members that they were. Hence, when they 'slipped'...they acted according to what they'd been told they were and what they were told they would do. Self fulfilling prophecy. It can kill people. WAaaaaaay back when I was put into Straight (early 80s) I was told I was an alcoholic and an addict. Neither was true, but after two years of isolation, sleep deprivation, humiliation, degredation etc., I bought into it. When I graduated I "stayed sober" for a couple of years but eventually 'had a slip'. I was convinced.....absolutely CONVINCED that I would spin out of control, therefore I did. For a while. It wasn't until I totally rejected AA/Straight/addiction as a disease etc. that I began to gain control of my life. When I stopped believing in all their bullshit, I got better. My life became manageable. It didn't revolve around drinking or drug use OR AA (because face it, many people substitute their addiction to drinking with an addiction to AA/recovery). It revolved around my family, work, playtime etc. as it should.
I'm not saying that nobody ever needs help in dealing with their life or problems. I"m saying that IMO, AA is a temporary stop-gap at best and a dangerous thought reform entity at worst.
-
Have you ever tried to criticize or even ask skeptical questions at an AA meeting or of a sponsor? I have, many times and I was promptly told not to 'ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'. I was told that to question AA or any of it's dogma was 'signing my own death warrant' (sound familiar?). It may not be a cult, per se.....but it sure does have most of the characteristics. Most of which use scare tactics and emotional blackmail as their weapons of choice.
I meant to include this link with that part of the post. It shows, better than I ever could explain, what happens when you dare criticize the great and powerful Oz. Just start reading through the Orange Paper Letters section. All sorts of Stepcrafters laughingly (literally) wishing or predicting death for him. They cannot tolerate criticism of any kind. Apparently, even from one of their own (the Valliant study proving that not only is AA ineffective, but dangerous). Go here and pick a section out of the Letters. Any one will do.
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)
-
Have you ever tried to criticize or even ask skeptical questions at an AA meeting or of a sponsor? I have, many times and I was promptly told not to 'ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'. I was told that to question AA or any of it's dogma was 'signing my own death warrant' (sound familiar?). It may not be a cult, per se.....but it sure does have most of the characteristics. Most of which use scare tactics and emotional blackmail as their weapons of choice.
I meant to include this link with that part of the post. It shows, better than I ever could explain, what happens when you dare criticize the great and powerful Oz. Just start reading through the Orange Paper Letters section. All sorts of Stepcrafters laughingly (literally) wishing or predicting death for him. They cannot tolerate criticism of any kind. Apparently, even from one of their own (the Valliant study proving that not only is AA ineffective, but dangerous). Go here and pick a section out of the Letters. Any one will do.
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)
Anne Bonney,
What you are talking about once again is not AA, separate personalities and principles. You keep talking about people and for all the people your talking about I can show you as many who don't act the way you are describing. AA does not coordinate a kindergarten class nor does it govern what or how folks will act. AA is the Big Book, The Twelve and Twelve, literature/pamphlets, grapevine, and the various books written by Bill and Dr. Bob. How all this is interpreted is your business.
So keep drinking your kool-aid ( orange flavor) Anne and read your newspaper (orange flavor). Oh and by the way if your criticism was on target we could have a debate but it is not. Pick one or the other (AA..or..the members).
Anne read and read again...Twelve traditions only this time believe that others believe this actually works.
Funny you never hear or read anywhere AA; GSO...criticize anyone or anything.
:shamrock:
Danny.......
-
I believe it all depends on the individual. Some people attend an AA meeting and it fills the right void for them, they are comfortable and fit right in and get the support they need. Others need something different. AA has help a lot of people recover from their addictions and keep them under control. And I feel in general people can get a lot of good advice from other people who are further down the road and have experience with recovery.
It is unfortunate that you had that experience, Ann. AA doesn’t have a written policy that states they should respond with “'don’t ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'............... 'signing my own death warrant'”. Maybe the guy running the meeting that night was going thru a divorce and/or hated woman. I believe there are many meeting locations in each city so you could try a different location and see what the people are like there, it may be a softer crowd.
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
...
-
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
That one guy has sourced beyond all reason every single claim he's made. G'head and attempt to disprove a single thing he's written.
-
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
That one guy has sourced beyond all reason every single claim he's made. G'head and attempt to disprove a single thing he's written.
Just one example:
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
He never cites a study and then goes on for pages basing his personal hypothesis and statistics on these numbers which were pulled from the air.
Link to source (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
...
-
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
That one guy has sourced beyond all reason every single claim he's made. G'head and attempt to disprove a single thing he's written.
Anne,
You can't be serious........
-
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
That one guy has sourced beyond all reason every single claim he's made. G'head and attempt to disprove a single thing he's written.
Anne,
You can't be serious........
I am serious. Please, cite a claim he's made that is false.
-
Have you ever tried to criticize or even ask skeptical questions at an AA meeting or of a sponsor? I have, many times and I was promptly told not to 'ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'. I was told that to question AA or any of it's dogma was 'signing my own death warrant' (sound familiar?). It may not be a cult, per se.....but it sure does have most of the characteristics. Most of which use scare tactics and emotional blackmail as their weapons of choice.
I meant to include this link with that part of the post. It shows, better than I ever could explain, what happens when you dare criticize the great and powerful Oz. Just start reading through the Orange Paper Letters section. All sorts of Stepcrafters laughingly (literally) wishing or predicting death for him. They cannot tolerate criticism of any kind. Apparently, even from one of their own (the Valliant study proving that not only is AA ineffective, but dangerous). Go here and pick a section out of the Letters. Any one will do.
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)
Anne Bonney,
What you are talking about once again is not AA, separate personalities and principles. You keep talking about people and for all the people your talking about I can show you as many who don't act the way you are describing. AA does not coordinate a kindergarten class nor does it govern what or how folks will act. AA is the Big Book, The Twelve and Twelve, literature/pamphlets, grapevine, and the various books written by Bill and Dr. Bob. How all this is interpreted is your business.
So keep drinking your kool-aid ( orange flavor) Anne and read your newspaper (orange flavor). Oh and by the way if your criticism was on target we could have a debate but it is not. Pick one or the other (AA..or..the members).
Anne read and read again...Twelve traditions only this time believe that others believe this actually works.
Funny you never hear or read anywhere AA; GSO...criticize anyone or anything.
:shamrock:
Danny.......
Oh, I see. If I would only listen to reason! If I'd only listen to true believers!! I'd finally see the light, right?? Jeez you people never give up.
I've read them all. Ad nauseum. And it's precisely what I have a problem with. Not the people. The basic tenets of AA are dangerous, IMO. You don't agree, fine. Why is it so important that I drink the KoolAid too? I'm quite happy and satisfied with my life.
-
I wouldn’t read too much into the “orange papers” or take it as gospel. It was written by one guy and written only using his personal view point.
That one guy has sourced beyond all reason every single claim he's made. G'head and attempt to disprove a single thing he's written.
Anne,
You can't be serious........
I am serious. Please, cite a claim he's made that is false.
Anne,They may be true and they may be false, but its just one mans opinion. Its not based on fact. I gave you an example of how he doesnt source his figures. Here it is again. I could say the world is going to end tomorrow and you couldnt disprove it (until tomorrow lol)... so a man writes a paper based on personal opinions and you believe him. There is nothing wrong with that. but dont try to peddle it as fact, thats all.
Just one example:
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
He never cites a study and then goes on for pages basing his personal hypothesis and statistics on these numbers which were pulled from the air.
Link to source (http://http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html)
...
-
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
Fuck off. I am in no way interested in any kind of interaction with you. :twofinger: :suicide:
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft
Fuck off. I am in no way interested in any kind of interaction with you. :twofinger: :suicide:
You dont need to interact. I am just pointing out to you that you are wrong. You are stating opinions as facts and that is misleading to the other readers.
...
-
ANd you're opinion about him being wrong is just that. An opinion. Let people go and read for themselves. He's sourced every single thing that he states as fact. His opinion is that AA is a dangerous cult. He backs that opinion up with facts that cannot be disputed no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you wish you could. You can't.
-
Look, Anne, there is no reason to be rude. This orange paper guy doesnt back up what he says with facts, as you think he does. I just gave you a random example of where he throws out numbers off the top of his head and then continues to build an argument around it. The paper is based on his opinions... it isnt fact based.
If you still believe it is fact then what study support the numbers in this statement of his? Where did these come from?
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
....
-
Have you ever tried to criticize or even ask skeptical questions at an AA meeting or of a sponsor? I have, many times and I was promptly told not to 'ask how my steak was prepared, to just enjoy it'. I was told that to question AA or any of it's dogma was 'signing my own death warrant' (sound familiar?). It may not be a cult, per se.....but it sure does have most of the characteristics. Most of which use scare tactics and emotional blackmail as their weapons of choice.
I meant to include this link with that part of the post. It shows, better than I ever could explain, what happens when you dare criticize the great and powerful Oz. Just start reading through the Orange Paper Letters section. All sorts of Stepcrafters laughingly (literally) wishing or predicting death for him. They cannot tolerate criticism of any kind. Apparently, even from one of their own (the Valliant study proving that not only is AA ineffective, but dangerous). Go here and pick a section out of the Letters. Any one will do.
http://www.orange-papers.org/ (http://www.orange-papers.org/)
Anne Bonney,
What you are talking about once again is not AA, separate personalities and principles. You keep talking about people and for all the people your talking about I can show you as many who don't act the way you are describing. AA does not coordinate a kindergarten class nor does it govern what or how folks will act. AA is the Big Book, The Twelve and Twelve, literature/pamphlets, grapevine, and the various books written by Bill and Dr. Bob. How all this is interpreted is your business.
So keep drinking your kool-aid ( orange flavor) Anne and read your newspaper (orange flavor). Oh and by the way if your criticism was on target we could have a debate but it is not. Pick one or the other (AA..or..the members).
Anne read and read again...Twelve traditions only this time believe that others believe this actually works.
Funny you never hear or read anywhere AA; GSO...criticize anyone or anything.
:shamrock:
Danny.......
Oh, I see. If I would only listen to reason! If I'd only listen to true believers!! I'd finally see the light, right?? Jeez you people never give up.
I've read them all. Ad nauseum. And it's precisely what I have a problem with. Not the people. The basic tenets of AA are dangerous, IMO. You don't agree, fine. Why is it so important that I drink the KoolAid too? I'm quite happy and satisfied with my life.
Because if you look at all your arguments (not the author of the orange papers those are his arguments) your talking about members and problems you have relating with them.
Danny
:shamrock:
-
Because if you look at all your arguments (not the author of the orange papers those are his arguments) your talking about members and problems you have relating with them.
Danny
:shamrock:
No. What I have a problem with is the basic tenets of AA. the Big Book, sponsors, the 12 & 12......all of what's contained in the official AA literature. I've read them all, time and time again. It's not necessarily the people (although you guys are PERFECT examples of what we're talking about)...its what AA teaches that I have a problem with.
-
Because if you look at all your arguments (not the author of the orange papers those are his arguments) your talking about members and problems you have relating with them.
Danny
:shamrock:
No. What I have a problem with is the basic tenets of AA. the Big Book, sponsors, the 12 & 12......all of what's contained in the official AA literature. I've read them all, time and time again. It's not necessarily the people (although you guys are PERFECT examples of what we're talking about)...its what AA teaches that I have a problem with.
Well will try one more time, separate personalities from principles. You keep coming from a place of personal feeling, at least that is what I see. I would love to here you expound on the tenets of AA. Your opinions from experience (personal) not from OJ or copy and pasting others. Just yours.
Thanks Danny...... :shamrock:
-
If you still believe it is fact then what study support the numbers in this statement of his? Where did these come from?
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
I'll bite. Like Anne said, all his citations are in his section on effectiveness (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html). Others have found similar results from a variety of sources. Penn and Teller use AA's own surveys for a 95% number in their episode of Bullshit on AA. Parts 1,2,3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5LJgk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5LJgk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY)
And Stanton Peele, Ph.D cites his sources in Diseasing of America as well:
These researchers discovered only two controlled studies of AA's effectiveness. Keith Ditman, a physician and head of the Alcoholism Research Clinic at UCLA in the 1960s, studied outcomes for three groups of alcoholics — those assigned by a court either to AA, to an alcoholism clinic, or to an untreated control group.55 Forty-four percent of the control group were not rearrested in the follow-up period, compared with only 31 percent of AA clients and 32 percent of clinic clients. In the other controlled study of AA, Jeffrey Brandsma and his colleagues reported in 1980 that those randomly assigned to AA engaged in binge drinking significantly more frequently at three months than those assigned either to the nontreatment control group or to other therapies.
As you can see. Those who went to AA did worse than those with no treatment at all. See for yourself:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
There are countless other books, webpages, academic journals and so forth similar to the above.
-
If you still believe it is fact then what study support the numbers in this statement of his? Where did these come from?
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
I'll bite. Like Anne said, all his citations are in his section on effectiveness (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html). Others have found similar results from a variety of sources. Penn and Teller use AA's own surveys for a 95% number in their episode of Bullshit on AA. Parts 1,2,3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tPNgHrIkgo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5LJgk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uwx2P5LJgk)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY)
And Stanton Peele, Ph.D cites his sources in Diseasing of America as well:
These researchers discovered only two controlled studies of AA's effectiveness. Keith Ditman, a physician and head of the Alcoholism Research Clinic at UCLA in the 1960s, studied outcomes for three groups of alcoholics — those assigned by a court either to AA, to an alcoholism clinic, or to an untreated control group.55 Forty-four percent of the control group were not rearrested in the follow-up period, compared with only 31 percent of AA clients and 32 percent of clinic clients. In the other controlled study of AA, Jeffrey Brandsma and his colleagues reported in 1980 that those randomly assigned to AA engaged in binge drinking significantly more frequently at three months than those assigned either to the nontreatment control group or to other therapies.
As you can see. Those who went to AA did worse than those with no treatment at all. See for yourself:
http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html (http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html)
There are countless other books, webpages, academic journals and so forth similar to the above.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
AA- GSO; Does not do surveys. Where are you folks coming up with this crap. Members, ex-members, independent agencies ect.... they do, Not AA/NA or CA. They also don't represent the GSO/AA at all. Not to say their surveys aren't informative they are, they just don't have permission from AA/GSO to do these. Read our 12 Traditions. It states emphatically why we don't enter into this realm.
Danny.... :shamrock:
-
AA- GSO; Does not do surveys.
They did at least once. Watch the episode of P&T's Bullshit posted above.
-
Yes, they do. The 5% stat comes from their 1989 triennial (that means once every three years) survey of their membership.
-
There is so much ignorance concerning AA it baffles me. Just because courts order you to AA doesn't mean AA had any input in this, really. Just because you find treatment centers, institutions, schools ect..use the 12 steps doesn't mean AA had any input in this. Last but not least just because you went to a AA meeting and everyone told you to "Fuck Off" and die doesn't mean AA had any input in this. AA is the GSO and the material they publish that's it, people. Nothing more nothing less. How every one interprets this information is their own business. I am not arguing that you find the material offensive fine, I at times find the material in the book offensive. A lot of women find the book offensive and so on. Just separate personalities from the principles. Most of you I have read do not like individuals who portray AA in a negative light.
Now if it is principles you don't like that is fine too, I do like the principles not much different then what my parents were trying to teach me. The twelve steps.
As a matter of fact they are hanging on a wall in the Head Quarters of "Stanley Works" in New Britain CT, or at least they were back in 1995 when I was there. Though altered in the writing a bit as to appeal to the general public. This was a gift presented to the Chairman/Owner of
Stanley Works by Bill Wilson himself.
They are basic principles of being accountable. Design for living.
Jeesh gots to make such a big scientific deal out of nothing, stop analyzing so much.
Danny
:shamrock: :shamrock:
-
NO they do not read your sources this was not funded nor endorsed by AA/GSO...
-
OK lets split hairs here, we have local district meeting 2-4 times a year in every state. There at these AA gathering The Distrist Chair Member (DCM) hands in a report of who (population) is in their state. This is internal, the only way to know about this is to have been a member of AA or talked with someone in AA or received information (GSO Pamphlet) on the internal working of AA. This is not common knowledge.
AA (GSO) then doesn't turn around and publish this to the world. We don't promote we attract.
Danny
-
The twelve steps.
As a matter of fact they are hanging on a wall in the Head Quarters of "Stanley Works" in New Britain CT, or at least they were back in 1995 when I was there. Though altered in the writing a bit as to appeal to the general public. This was a gift presented to the Chairman/Owner of
Stanley Works by Bill Wilson himself.
They are basic principles of being accountable. Design for living.
Oh yeah. He was a real character to look up to (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html). And take a look at some of the skeletons in AAWS's closet (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-not_good.html#AAWS_perjury) before you claim their hands are clean.
Tell me this. Why won't you watch that Penn & Teller episode. Are you afraid it'll upset your sobriety?
-
NO they do not read your sources this was not funded nor endorsed by AA/GSO...
Watch the P&T: Bullshit episode. It was.
-
Another thing I figure you might be interested in reading. Are you aware of the Lawsuits in Mexico and Germany filed by the GSO? That's gotta violate a tradition or two. Apparantly they're quite selective about the enforcement of those when it threatens their income. Check out this letter written by several delegates and trustees:
How We Carry the Message
of AA to the World
Issued September 2001
by
Bob M. Past Delegate Panel 43, 1993 - 1994
Jude H. Past Delegate Panel 41- Area 65
Gail M. Past Alternate Delegate Panel 43, Area 30
Jake H. Past Northeast Region Class B Trustee, Maine
Maryann W. Past Delegate Panel 40, Area 40
Jack C. Past Delegate Panel 44 Area 56
Vince P. DCMC District 11, Area 03
and others impossible to list here
Four points to secure the future of AA
1. AA shall carry its message for free to those who need it and want it. Freely have ye received, freely give! AA should have no financial or intellectual property at all.
2. AA should never do business, should again become (and then remain forever) non-professional.
3. AA ought to be a spiritual entity under God's guidance, affiliated with no organization whatsoever.
4. AA shall be supported by voluntary contributions of AA members only. Sales of any kind, entrance fees, public taxpayer funds and the [text incomplete — this line was truncated here]
AA Conference Charter: Litigation and Article II
One of the biggest challenges to our spiritual heritage and our AA way of life in general has and will be the issue of litigation. This issue affects the very heart of our spiritual effectiveness in our basic 12-Step work itself.
Litigation is an action, which is opposed to all of our 36 spiritual principles. Yet we continue to litigate against and threatened AA members, groups, and entire Service Structures throughout the world. Two major litigations were instigated by us: in Mexico and currently in Germany.
The Mexico Litigation
In Mexico many groups became aware that their Service Structure, Central Mexicana, was getting too far into money, property, and authority. They were operating too much like a business. The Big Book cost was too high for most members to afford. So 1,500 groups broke away in August 1986 and formed a new Service Structure, Seccion Mexico (AA Section Mexico), which was to grow to nearly 2,500 groups in the next 10 years.
This new service structure utilized our 36 spiritual principles very well. Even their Conferences were completely paid for by the "voluntary contributions of the groups" and admission was free ("no dues or fees"). Section Mexico printed and sold the Big Book at cost. A notarized letter from A.A.W.S. of February 17, 1994 called this copyright and trademark infringement. And for this Section Mexico has been punished.
In Mexico copyright violations are criminal and not civil. Also in Mexico any anonymous book was only protected for 50 years after publication. Even if our Big Book would not have been public domain due to publication without copyright notice in January 1939, any protection would have expired in Mexico no later than 1989. A book having a single author of a known name would have protection until 50 years after his death. Mysteriously a name, WGNE PARKS, also PARKS WYNE (sic) appeared from our G.S.O./A.A.W.S. on Mexican Copyright Office affidavits as sole author of the Big Book and all the other AA books, booklets and pamphlets. Also there was the above stated notarized letter from G.S.O. giving permission to Central Mexicana to take whatever legal actions they wish to become the sole distributor of the Big Book. Then our trusted servants stated to our fellowship that it was an internal problem in Mexico and they had nothing to do with it.
Section Mexico decided to follow our spiritual principles and not fight the criminal action. Warranty Five of Concept Twelve: "That no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy." Also from Warranty Five: "Those early Conferences believed that the power to sue would be a dangerous thing for us to possess. It was recognized that a public lawsuit is a public controversy, something in which our Tradition says we may not engage."
The result of the criminal lawsuit besides having the Federal Police raid their AA offices and confiscate all their literature and books on July 4th, 1994, was the enormous cost** taken away from 12-Step work. Also AA members had our treasured anonymity broken against their will, and tragically one member of the Service Board (Xavier) was even sentenced to one year in jail.
**two million Mexican Peso according to a letter of September 16, 1995 by Dr. Guzman, Chairman of the Mexican AA General Service Board
The German lawsuits
In German speaking Europe (population about 100 million people, six million being alcoholics) the fellowship struggled for correctly translated Big Book paperback or pocket size editions for decades, but was constantly ignored by their local G.S.O. As a result less than 5000 Big Books were distributed annually and German members lacked knowledge and practice of the AA program as laid down in our book. Even those who could afford to buy a book were misled by the fact that it suggested a mental-psychological awakening. The word spiritual was removed from the German text more than a hundred times. Step one stated we are powerless. Step four skipped the word moral. Step 11 suggested prayer and thinking. These are but a few examples of the "interpretation" given our book and our program of recovery. G.S.O. New York expressed concern regarding these wrongs in the 80's, but German G.S.O. ignored such ominous warnings and went ahead and continued to sell this diluted message for DM25 (about $18 at that time). Although the back of the title page states this book was copyrighted, the copyright had entirely failed to protect the integrity of our message.
As a result the relapse rate among AAs increased dramatically. In 1995 GSC issued a recommendation to bring law suits against book shops offering AA literature published by the German G.S.O. The recommendation said "because of spiritual reasons we should maintain a distribution monopoly" for AA literature. Obviously, there was an emergency. With participation of US and Mexican AA members, the AA Big Book Study Group (AA BBSG) was formed in 1995 to educate themselves and newcomers how to practice our AA principles. In October 1995 one AA newsletter covered "Greshem's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous" which suggested a solution to the apparent problems: a Back to Basics approach. This article was well recognized throughout all German-speaking groups. Independent local Big Book studies and step study meetings sprung up. However, German General Service Conference of March 1996 decided to continue with overpriced and wrongly translated Big Books. This was the point when AA BBSG felt obliged to take action. They, as a group, published a pocket-sized version with a translation that more accurately reflected the original English text. During the national AA Convention in Bremen, Germany (April 1996) books were given away for free by the thousands. People grasped the message like dry sponge sucks in fresh water. A second printing had to follow soon and by fall of 1996 about 30,000 booklets were gone. The Big Book was a topic now at meetings. Many expressed deep gratitude for a spiritual solution.
This new awareness also pushed sales of the G.S.O. version of the book to an all time high in 1996 (18.4% up). Despite that, German G.S.O. mailed letters to all German speaking groups saying this was non-approved literature, a copyright violation and a falsification of the fellowship's intellectual property. G.S.O.'s former public relations officer visited some AA BBSG members and was more specific about what the G.S.O. general manager and AA Board members had in mind. He said, "If you do not comply with our requests we will destroy you mentally and financially!" On April 7th, 1997 German G.S.O. brought criminal charges and requested the police to investigate the members of AA BBSG. The whole group and one member in particular was accused of unlawful collection of money, essentially declaring our group's 7th tradition to be criminal. There were also accusations re: cheating income tax, copyright violation and more. When Attorney General of State found nothing wrong or unlawful, G.S.O. went ahead and pushed for criminal prosecution in Supreme Court. G.S.O. filed civil lawsuits against one AA BBSG member whom they knew by full name and against supportive non-AA members as well. They claimed copyright violation and requested that existing Big Books to be destroyed and substantial fines to be paid (up to about US$ 286,000.00) or 6 months in jail each. Because German G.S.O. failed and lost one of these civil lawsuits for a half million German Marks, A.A.W.S. Inc. (New York) entered into the litigation directly in September 1999. The courts investigated thoroughly and eventually dropped all criminal charges.
But the public civil litigation continues to drag on, apparently to protect the German and U.S./Canada G.S.O.'s profits and power to govern. Two civil actions are now in appeal. Because Sue Smith Windows (Dr. Bob's daughter) was appointed by the court as a witness for the defendant and could not yet be heard due to her physical health problems these lawsuits are still pending. The German Service Structure has essentially, and somewhat covertly, gained ownership and ultimate control over many groups' bank accounts thus enabling G.S.O. to draw on these accounts whenever they see fit, but they fail to list these accounts in their financial statements. Those resources are being used to pay courts and expensive lawyers to continue their punitive actions, with the result of blocking AA's message from being carried to many still suffering alcoholics. We consider this being a misuse of group funds.
We wonder what God would think about that?
1. Members of the AA Big Book Study Group plead guilty of publishing the non-copyrighted original manuscript and first edition of the big book, and giving all away for free.
2. Also they plead guilty of making translations closer to the English version, with a less diluted message, than those from the sole AAWS-approved Service Structure.
3. Finally these German members of the AA BBSG plead guilty of publishing Big Books with Seventh Tradition money and giving them away for free.
These members also have had their anonymity broken against their will, as the public and media is becoming more and more aware of actions taken by the service structures in the name of AA. But these actions are rooted in the desire for money and power.
How can AA justify all these actions with our Steps, Traditions or Concepts?
This is not about stealing computer equipment from an office and punishing the criminal perpetrators. This is about unselfishly helping "other alcoholics, with no thought of reward in money or prestige" as AA Comes of Age (page 160) states it. How did it come about that this principle could be so easily violated? There have been some major changes to Article II of the Conference Charter; none of which informed members feel was good for the fellowship. Experienced AA members may want to check their older Services Manuals to find out about the changes to Article II made in 1979 and again in 1987. Be prepared to discover that litigations in the AA name always fall back on the change made in 1987. This very change allows one AA entity to be in unqualified authority over others, providing the grounds for imposing acts of government and personal punishment on AA groups and their respective members. When adopted in 1955 our Conference Charter read: "Other Sections of the Conference may sometimes be created in foreign lands as the need arises. But no Conference Section shall ever be placed in authority over another. All joint action shall be taken only upon two-thirds vote of the combined Sections. Within its boundaries each Conference ought to be autonomous!" Keep in mind; AA Section Mexico already existed, when the change was applied.
Since 1987 the changed Charter reads, "In countries where a General Service Structure exists, the United States/Canada Conference will delegate sole right to publish our Conference-approved literature to the General Service Board of that structure." It was suggested that this new wording of Article II only made it into the Service Manual, because it could be interpreted as an obligation of US/Canada to grant rights to publish. But in reality things went much worse than that. G.S.C. was never presented with any proposals to grant publication rights nor did it ever grant such a right to anyone. Until now, all that has happened was that some legal copyright license agreements were arranged behind closed doors by A.A.W.S. Inc. without knowledge or approval of the delegates, let alone the fellowship as a whole. All three of such legal agreements for Germany of August 26, 1996 did not stand in court and were rejected as insufficient. A.A.W.S. had to issue legally improved agreements on April 17, 2000. But, when it comes to foreign language Big Books the term "conference-approved" degenerated to mean merely A.A.W.S.-approved. Our Conference delegates were neither involved nor were they informed. AA members and groups of foreign countries have no choice if we, the U.S./Canada members, continue to allow our A.A.W.S. to dictate the "sole" framework for those supposedly "autonomous" service structures. We are at fault if, by silence, we support our A.A.W.S. in disallowing these foreign service structures to be responsible to "those they serve" and back up the profit motivated monopoly that sell our books in foreign countries.
We AA members should remind ourselves that we are not talking about peanuts like the size or color of a three ring binder here. We are faced with serious threats to our Conference Charter. The Charter itself states it could only be changed by a three-quarters vote by all Conference members. Has the Conference had any floor discussion or debate on these issues? Has the other side been allowed to present their position to the Conference? The answer is NO.
It is interesting that these substantial changes to the AA Conference Charter occurred just eight months after Section Mexico was formed at the next General Service Conference (1987). More interestingly still, one year before (in 1986) the following was placed in the Service Manual under
"How G.S.O. Is Supported":
"All activities at G.S.O. are lumped into two categories for the purpose of reporting expenses: service and publishing expense. In the past, AA groups contributed enough to cover about two-thirds of the service expense. The remainder was covered by publishing income, which was in excess of that required for publishing expense."
So, in 1986, the General Service Board asked for a special effort to inform the fellowship of the dangers inherent in this situation; particularly that a substantial fraction of the publishing income now comes from outside sources. The effort was begun to inform the groups about this growing problem. The challenge was to make G.S.O.'s service work self-supporting through contributions of the membership and to sell literature at cost to everyone."
Headline and first paragraph of this text have recently been removed by A.A.W.S. without discussion or vote at the Conference. The remains went on page S69 which makes it less obvious. However, it was in place and valid for more than a decade. Since 1986 this warning has escalated to a point from one third of total income received to two thirds of total income. Revenues accrued from sales to non-AA customers are considerably more than group donations. And the effort to gain a sense from the groups of the "dangers inherent in this situation" never took place. More information and documentation can be found on-line at http://199.181.80.174 (http://199.181.80.174) [ Dead Link ]
What can we do?
For an informed group conscience the groups need to be informed. Copy this and pass it around in your groups, Districts, Areas, etc. There are proposals to bring these issues before the Conference, let your Delegate know what you think about these issues.
Or write us through: [email protected]
You may add your local contact information here:
-
The twelve steps.
As a matter of fact they are hanging on a wall in the Head Quarters of "Stanley Works" in New Britain CT, or at least they were back in 1995 when I was there. Though altered in the writing a bit as to appeal to the general public. This was a gift presented to the Chairman/Owner of
Stanley Works by Bill Wilson himself.
They are basic principles of being accountable. Design for living.
Oh yeah. He was a real character to look up to (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-otherwomen.html). And take a look at some of the skeletons in AAWS's closet (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-not_good.html#AAWS_perjury) before you claim their hands are clean.
Tell me this. Why won't you watch that Penn & Teller episode. Are you afraid it'll upset your sobriety?
I did watch it, I thought I inferred that. Now tell me where it says AA endorsed or funded this survey......Danny
-
Another thing I figure you might be interested in reading. Are you aware of the Lawsuits in Mexico and Germany filed by the GSO? That's gotta violate a tradition or two. Apparantly they're quite selective about the enforcement of those when it threatens their income. Check out this letter written by several delegates and trustees:
How We Carry the Message
of AA to the World
Issued September 2001
by
Bob M. Past Delegate Panel 43, 1993 - 1994
Jude H. Past Delegate Panel 41- Area 65
Gail M. Past Alternate Delegate Panel 43, Area 30
Jake H. Past Northeast Region Class B Trustee, Maine
Maryann W. Past Delegate Panel 40, Area 40
Jack C. Past Delegate Panel 44 Area 56
Vince P. DCMC District 11, Area 03
and others impossible to list here
Four points to secure the future of AA
1. AA shall carry its message for free to those who need it and want it. Freely have ye received, freely give! AA should have no financial or intellectual property at all.
2. AA should never do business, should again become (and then remain forever) non-professional.
3. AA ought to be a spiritual entity under God's guidance, affiliated with no organization whatsoever.
4. AA shall be supported by voluntary contributions of AA members only. Sales of any kind, entrance fees, public taxpayer funds and the [text incomplete — this line was truncated here]
AA Conference Charter: Litigation and Article II
One of the biggest challenges to our spiritual heritage and our AA way of life in general has and will be the issue of litigation. This issue affects the very heart of our spiritual effectiveness in our basic 12-Step work itself.
Litigation is an action, which is opposed to all of our 36 spiritual principles. Yet we continue to litigate against and threatened AA members, groups, and entire Service Structures throughout the world. Two major litigations were instigated by us: in Mexico and currently in Germany.
The Mexico Litigation
In Mexico many groups became aware that their Service Structure, Central Mexicana, was getting too far into money, property, and authority. They were operating too much like a business. The Big Book cost was too high for most members to afford. So 1,500 groups broke away in August 1986 and formed a new Service Structure, Seccion Mexico (AA Section Mexico), which was to grow to nearly 2,500 groups in the next 10 years.
This new service structure utilized our 36 spiritual principles very well. Even their Conferences were completely paid for by the "voluntary contributions of the groups" and admission was free ("no dues or fees"). Section Mexico printed and sold the Big Book at cost. A notarized letter from A.A.W.S. of February 17, 1994 called this copyright and trademark infringement. And for this Section Mexico has been punished.
In Mexico copyright violations are criminal and not civil. Also in Mexico any anonymous book was only protected for 50 years after publication. Even if our Big Book would not have been public domain due to publication without copyright notice in January 1939, any protection would have expired in Mexico no later than 1989. A book having a single author of a known name would have protection until 50 years after his death. Mysteriously a name, WGNE PARKS, also PARKS WYNE (sic) appeared from our G.S.O./A.A.W.S. on Mexican Copyright Office affidavits as sole author of the Big Book and all the other AA books, booklets and pamphlets. Also there was the above stated notarized letter from G.S.O. giving permission to Central Mexicana to take whatever legal actions they wish to become the sole distributor of the Big Book. Then our trusted servants stated to our fellowship that it was an internal problem in Mexico and they had nothing to do with it.
Section Mexico decided to follow our spiritual principles and not fight the criminal action. Warranty Five of Concept Twelve: "That no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy." Also from Warranty Five: "Those early Conferences believed that the power to sue would be a dangerous thing for us to possess. It was recognized that a public lawsuit is a public controversy, something in which our Tradition says we may not engage."
The result of the criminal lawsuit besides having the Federal Police raid their AA offices and confiscate all their literature and books on July 4th, 1994, was the enormous cost** taken away from 12-Step work. Also AA members had our treasured anonymity broken against their will, and tragically one member of the Service Board (Xavier) was even sentenced to one year in jail.
**two million Mexican Peso according to a letter of September 16, 1995 by Dr. Guzman, Chairman of the Mexican AA General Service Board
The German lawsuits
In German speaking Europe (population about 100 million people, six million being alcoholics) the fellowship struggled for correctly translated Big Book paperback or pocket size editions for decades, but was constantly ignored by their local G.S.O. As a result less than 5000 Big Books were distributed annually and German members lacked knowledge and practice of the AA program as laid down in our book. Even those who could afford to buy a book were misled by the fact that it suggested a mental-psychological awakening. The word spiritual was removed from the German text more than a hundred times. Step one stated we are powerless. Step four skipped the word moral. Step 11 suggested prayer and thinking. These are but a few examples of the "interpretation" given our book and our program of recovery. G.S.O. New York expressed concern regarding these wrongs in the 80's, but German G.S.O. ignored such ominous warnings and went ahead and continued to sell this diluted message for DM25 (about $18 at that time). Although the back of the title page states this book was copyrighted, the copyright had entirely failed to protect the integrity of our message.
As a result the relapse rate among AAs increased dramatically. In 1995 GSC issued a recommendation to bring law suits against book shops offering AA literature published by the German G.S.O. The recommendation said "because of spiritual reasons we should maintain a distribution monopoly" for AA literature. Obviously, there was an emergency. With participation of US and Mexican AA members, the AA Big Book Study Group (AA BBSG) was formed in 1995 to educate themselves and newcomers how to practice our AA principles. In October 1995 one AA newsletter covered "Greshem's Law and Alcoholics Anonymous" which suggested a solution to the apparent problems: a Back to Basics approach. This article was well recognized throughout all German-speaking groups. Independent local Big Book studies and step study meetings sprung up. However, German General Service Conference of March 1996 decided to continue with overpriced and wrongly translated Big Books. This was the point when AA BBSG felt obliged to take action. They, as a group, published a pocket-sized version with a translation that more accurately reflected the original English text. During the national AA Convention in Bremen, Germany (April 1996) books were given away for free by the thousands. People grasped the message like dry sponge sucks in fresh water. A second printing had to follow soon and by fall of 1996 about 30,000 booklets were gone. The Big Book was a topic now at meetings. Many expressed deep gratitude for a spiritual solution.
This new awareness also pushed sales of the G.S.O. version of the book to an all time high in 1996 (18.4% up). Despite that, German G.S.O. mailed letters to all German speaking groups saying this was non-approved literature, a copyright violation and a falsification of the fellowship's intellectual property. G.S.O.'s former public relations officer visited some AA BBSG members and was more specific about what the G.S.O. general manager and AA Board members had in mind. He said, "If you do not comply with our requests we will destroy you mentally and financially!" On April 7th, 1997 German G.S.O. brought criminal charges and requested the police to investigate the members of AA BBSG. The whole group and one member in particular was accused of unlawful collection of money, essentially declaring our group's 7th tradition to be criminal. There were also accusations re: cheating income tax, copyright violation and more. When Attorney General of State found nothing wrong or unlawful, G.S.O. went ahead and pushed for criminal prosecution in Supreme Court. G.S.O. filed civil lawsuits against one AA BBSG member whom they knew by full name and against supportive non-AA members as well. They claimed copyright violation and requested that existing Big Books to be destroyed and substantial fines to be paid (up to about US$ 286,000.00) or 6 months in jail each. Because German G.S.O. failed and lost one of these civil lawsuits for a half million German Marks, A.A.W.S. Inc. (New York) entered into the litigation directly in September 1999. The courts investigated thoroughly and eventually dropped all criminal charges.
But the public civil litigation continues to drag on, apparently to protect the German and U.S./Canada G.S.O.'s profits and power to govern. Two civil actions are now in appeal. Because Sue Smith Windows (Dr. Bob's daughter) was appointed by the court as a witness for the defendant and could not yet be heard due to her physical health problems these lawsuits are still pending. The German Service Structure has essentially, and somewhat covertly, gained ownership and ultimate control over many groups' bank accounts thus enabling G.S.O. to draw on these accounts whenever they see fit, but they fail to list these accounts in their financial statements. Those resources are being used to pay courts and expensive lawyers to continue their punitive actions, with the result of blocking AA's message from being carried to many still suffering alcoholics. We consider this being a misuse of group funds.
We wonder what God would think about that?
1. Members of the AA Big Book Study Group plead guilty of publishing the non-copyrighted original manuscript and first edition of the big book, and giving all away for free.
2. Also they plead guilty of making translations closer to the English version, with a less diluted message, than those from the sole AAWS-approved Service Structure.
3. Finally these German members of the AA BBSG plead guilty of publishing Big Books with Seventh Tradition money and giving them away for free.
These members also have had their anonymity broken against their will, as the public and media is becoming more and more aware of actions taken by the service structures in the name of AA. But these actions are rooted in the desire for money and power.
How can AA justify all these actions with our Steps, Traditions or Concepts?
This is not about stealing computer equipment from an office and punishing the criminal perpetrators. This is about unselfishly helping "other alcoholics, with no thought of reward in money or prestige" as AA Comes of Age (page 160) states it. How did it come about that this principle could be so easily violated? There have been some major changes to Article II of the Conference Charter; none of which informed members feel was good for the fellowship. Experienced AA members may want to check their older Services Manuals to find out about the changes to Article II made in 1979 and again in 1987. Be prepared to discover that litigations in the AA name always fall back on the change made in 1987. This very change allows one AA entity to be in unqualified authority over others, providing the grounds for imposing acts of government and personal punishment on AA groups and their respective members. When adopted in 1955 our Conference Charter read: "Other Sections of the Conference may sometimes be created in foreign lands as the need arises. But no Conference Section shall ever be placed in authority over another. All joint action shall be taken only upon two-thirds vote of the combined Sections. Within its boundaries each Conference ought to be autonomous!" Keep in mind; AA Section Mexico already existed, when the change was applied.
Since 1987 the changed Charter reads, "In countries where a General Service Structure exists, the United States/Canada Conference will delegate sole right to publish our Conference-approved literature to the General Service Board of that structure." It was suggested that this new wording of Article II only made it into the Service Manual, because it could be interpreted as an obligation of US/Canada to grant rights to publish. But in reality things went much worse than that. G.S.C. was never presented with any proposals to grant publication rights nor did it ever grant such a right to anyone. Until now, all that has happened was that some legal copyright license agreements were arranged behind closed doors by A.A.W.S. Inc. without knowledge or approval of the delegates, let alone the fellowship as a whole. All three of such legal agreements for Germany of August 26, 1996 did not stand in court and were rejected as insufficient. A.A.W.S. had to issue legally improved agreements on April 17, 2000. But, when it comes to foreign language Big Books the term "conference-approved" degenerated to mean merely A.A.W.S.-approved. Our Conference delegates were neither involved nor were they informed. AA members and groups of foreign countries have no choice if we, the U.S./Canada members, continue to allow our A.A.W.S. to dictate the "sole" framework for those supposedly "autonomous" service structures. We are at fault if, by silence, we support our A.A.W.S. in disallowing these foreign service structures to be responsible to "those they serve" and back up the profit motivated monopoly that sell our books in foreign countries.
We AA members should remind ourselves that we are not talking about peanuts like the size or color of a three ring binder here. We are faced with serious threats to our Conference Charter. The Charter itself states it could only be changed by a three-quarters vote by all Conference members. Has the Conference had any floor discussion or debate on these issues? Has the other side been allowed to present their position to the Conference? The answer is NO.
It is interesting that these substantial changes to the AA Conference Charter occurred just eight months after Section Mexico was formed at the next General Service Conference (1987). More interestingly still, one year before (in 1986) the following was placed in the Service Manual under
"How G.S.O. Is Supported":
"All activities at G.S.O. are lumped into two categories for the purpose of reporting expenses: service and publishing expense. In the past, AA groups contributed enough to cover about two-thirds of the service expense. The remainder was covered by publishing income, which was in excess of that required for publishing expense."
So, in 1986, the General Service Board asked for a special effort to inform the fellowship of the dangers inherent in this situation; particularly that a substantial fraction of the publishing income now comes from outside sources. The effort was begun to inform the groups about this growing problem. The challenge was to make G.S.O.'s service work self-supporting through contributions of the membership and to sell literature at cost to everyone."
Headline and first paragraph of this text have recently been removed by A.A.W.S. without discussion or vote at the Conference. The remains went on page S69 which makes it less obvious. However, it was in place and valid for more than a decade. Since 1986 this warning has escalated to a point from one third of total income received to two thirds of total income. Revenues accrued from sales to non-AA customers are considerably more than group donations. And the effort to gain a sense from the groups of the "dangers inherent in this situation" never took place. More information and documentation can be found on-line at http://199.181.80.174 (http://199.181.80.174) [ Dead Link ]
What can we do?
For an informed group conscience the groups need to be informed. Copy this and pass it around in your groups, Districts, Areas, etc. There are proposals to bring these issues before the Conference, let your Delegate know what you think about these issues.
Or write us through: [email protected]
You may add your local contact information here:
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is copy right infringement issues, why not. Already knew about that. Thanks....
Danny a
-
This is copy right infringement issues, why not. Already knew about that. Thanks....
Danny a
Gee. Thought suing people would have qualified as violating one of them traditions -- specifically the one about public controversy. If AAWS/GSO were truly concerned about spreading the word, why should they care how people got the book?
-
I did watch it, I thought I inferred that. Now tell me where it says AA endorsed or funded this survey......Danny
No you did not watch it. You're afraid to. The part mentioned is in the third part (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PjpOsE3xoY) of at about 2 minutes.
-
Thanks for the references, freewill, I am neutral on this so I dont have a personal opinion at this point......I looked thru the effectiveness section but there isnt any reference to a study which supports the numbers that this guy bases his statements on. The Youtube videos never pointed the reader to a study either.
His Orange papers stated:
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
But he never referenced the study. Does anyone have a link to this? How many people were studied? Who carried out the study? What were the results?
It appears he just pulled the numbers out of the air.
...
-
Thanks for the references, freewill, I am neutral on this so I dont have a personal opinion at this point......I looked thru the effectiveness section but there isnt any reference to a study which supports the numbers that this guy bases his statements on. The Youtube videos never pointed the reader to a study either.
His Orange papers stated:
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
But he never referenced the study. Does anyone have a link to this? How many people were studied? Who carried out the study? What were the results?
It appears he just pulled the numbers out of the air.
...
Whooter. He cites the Brandsma study, George Vaillant's data, and many others. He's very clear at how he arrives at his conclusions so you can agree or disagree. It's in black and white on his effectiveness page (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html). Don't pretend like they don't exist. Where there aren't hyperlinks to sources there are quotations with captions, footnotes, endnotes, and so forth. I already pointed you to a few studies, both of which he uses but are hardly his only sources.
-
Whooter. He cites the Brandsma study, George Vaillant's data, and many others. He's very clear at how he arrives at his conclusions so you can agree or disagree. It's in black and white on his effectiveness page (http://http://orange-papers.org/orange-effectiveness.html). Don't pretend like they don't exist. Where there aren't hyperlinks to sources there are quotations with captions, footnotes, endnotes, and so forth. I already pointed you to a few studies, both of which he uses but are hardly his only sources.
Doctor Brandsma spoke a lot about binge drinking but his study never reported on effectiveness numbers. As far as I can tell the reference on the orange papers are to support his talking about "binge drinking" not effectiveness numbers.
George Vaillant never concluded effectiveness numbers either.
Here is what I found:
In 1980 Dr Jeffrey Brandsma and colleagues published a large scale controlled study of the effect of alcoholism treatment on alcoholics.
Conclusions from the Brandsma Study
From this study we conclude that whereas AA may be a good and comfortable fit for a few people who have a problem with alcohol, the majority of people with alcohol problems appear to do better with a different approach. We would love to see a study of why so many people dropped out of AA. We hypothesize that this may be due to the fact that AA's theological notions of the powerlessness of humanity and of the need for a rescuing God are unpalatable not only to many atheists and agnostics but to almost all theists who are not Calvinists as well. Unfortunately, no attempt has ever been made to study the best way to match individuals with alcohol treatment which took these theological variables into account.
A number of researchers have made the claim that 95% of new AA members leave within the first year--that only 5% of new member remain. This claim is based on an AA internal document called Comments On A.A.'S Triennial Surveys.
Link to source (http://http://hamsnetwork.org/effective.pdf)
...
-
Whooter and Freewill,
My statement from the beginning of this thread has been that "AA - GSO New York City World Headquarters For AA....Has not nor will entertain, endorse or participate in a survey. That is all I have been saying and you have not proved this inaccurate yet. Not that I am trying to win this debate, I am just trying to establish AA positions here as I know them. I have been a member of AA for 22 yrs. and counting. Please read our material.
Just because ex-members, agencies, members (of AA) or whatever publish a opinion or their experience does not mean they speak for AA (as they in fact were a AA). I don't speak for AA, I am speaking of decades of experience and opinions. I understand the anonymity that AA will continue on with.
I would not venture to take on a study of AA, first off why??? AA is people trying to get sober or not. Many folks find out AA is not for them either because they don't like it or they are not Alcoholics. This is my short laymen version.
Danny.....
:shamrock:
-
:soapbox:
I would not venture to take on a study of AA, first off why???
:shamrock:
Really??? Why?? Uhhhh because if you're gonna brag about "success rates" you better goddamned well be able to back your claims up. That's what is expected in the real world. Maybe not in AA's insular little fairlyland but damn. I can't believe you seriously asked that.
To back up what they tell people in meetings. To be honest. So that they don't give false hope...they do'nt promise things they can't deliver.
-
Whooter and Freewill,
My statement from the beginning of this thread has been that "AA - GSO New York City World Headquarters For AA....Has not nor will entertain, endorse or participate in a survey. That is all I have been saying and you have not proved this inaccurate yet. Not that I am trying to win this debate, I am just trying to establish AA positions here as I know them. I have been a member of AA for 22 yrs. and counting. Please read our material.
Just because ex-members, agencies, members (of AA) or whatever publish a opinion or their experience does not mean they speak for AA (as they in fact were a AA). I don't speak for AA, I am speaking of decades of experience and opinions. I understand the anonymity that AA will continue on with.
I would not venture to take on a study of AA, first off why??? AA is people trying to get sober or not. Many folks find out AA is not for them either because they don't like it or they are not Alcoholics. This is my short laymen version.
Danny.....
:shamrock:
I dont have a personal opinion on AA, I was just pointing out that the statement the orange papers made about AA’s failure rates is unsubstantiated:
Even the most ardent true believers who will be honest about it recognize that A.A. and N.A. have at least 90% failure rates. And the real numbers are more like 95% or 98% or 100% failure rates. It depends on who is doing the counting, how they are counting, and what they are counting or measuring.
I checked Doctor Jefferey Brandsmas study and George Vaillant's papers and neither one of them came to this conclusion, so the argument used on the orange papers is based on numbers which were pulled from the air? Why didn’t they reference a study?
Does anyone have a link to where this study or who performed it?
...
-
:soapbox:
I would not venture to take on a study of AA, first off why???
:shamrock:
Really??? Why?? Uhhhh because if you're gonna brag about "success rates" you better goddamned well be able to back your claims up. That's what is expected in the real world. Maybe not in AA's insular little fairlyland but damn. I can't believe you seriously asked that.
To back up what they tell people in meetings. To be honest. So that they don't give false hope...they do'nt promise things they can't deliver.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Here we go again, AA/GSO does not publish any success rates or any kind of rates that would be your friends survey, OJ. We (AA) does not promote itself people promote, advertise and push AA. Read Anne. GO on line and find the site for AA. Find the Twelve and Twelve and read the twelve traditions. They will explain in detail what AA does.
If you would just read for crying out loud and stop being stubborn you will see you are wrong. I am not arguing with you about members being assholes ( I am One...lol). But I do not represent AA/GSO they remain anonymous in this, they can't control my actions nor do they want too.
Danny
-
It may be difficult to find places where AA has stated a success rate (it has had the surveys, however), but it does flatly state that AA is the only way to sobriety. AA does this by redefining sobriety to mean a person who has adopted the spiritual principles of AA (of course a person only finds out about this redefinition after joining AA). A person that quits drinking is merely "dry" (as i elaborated on in the other thread (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009&p=357962#p357959)).
-
It may be difficult to find places where AA has stated a success rate (it has had the surveys, however), but it does flatly state that AA is the only way to sobriety. AA does this by redefining sobriety to mean a person who has adopted the spiritual principles of AA (of course a person only finds out about this redefinition after joining AA). A person that quits drinking is merely "dry" (as i elaborated on in the other thread (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009&p=357962#p357959)).
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Free come on you know darn well they have never funded, endorsed or participated in a survey. It would go against everything they stand for. We as members are not their pawns and WE ARE ANONYMOUS...ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS= AA, they can't we are anonymous. Get it!!!!!!
Read the materials no where are you going to find that statement, "AA is the only way to sobriety".
AA supports church, psychiatric care and so on it states this in the big book. Listen go on line I have two computers, sometime next week lets go to the AA site and look at the book. If you can show me what your talking about in the books I'll stop AA right there. OK....Will discuss this gentlemanly on this site ok.
Danny .....I hope I explained that well.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
It may be difficult to find places where AA has stated a success rate (it has had the surveys, however), but it does flatly state that AA is the only way to sobriety. AA does this by redefining sobriety to mean a person who has adopted the spiritual principles of AA (of course a person only finds out about this redefinition after joining AA). A person that quits drinking is merely "dry" (as i elaborated on in the other thread (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009&p=357962#p357959)).
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Free come on you know darn well they have never funded, endorsed or participated in a survey. It would go against everything they stand for. We as members are not their pawns and WE ARE ANONYMOUS...ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS= AA, they can't we are anonymous. Get it!!!!!!
Read the materials no where are you going to find that statement, "AA is the only way to sobriety".
AA states that people who quit without AA are not really "sober". They are merely "dry". This means AA teaches that AA is the only way to Sobriety.
Furthermore. AA literature itself teaches:
The A.A. literature says:
* ... you may be suffering from an illness which only a spiritual experience will conquer.
...
At first some of us tried to avoid the issue, hoping against hope we were not true alcoholics. But after a while we had to face the fact that we must find a spiritual basis of life — or else.
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 44.
* ...he was insisting that he had found the only cure.
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 257.
* ...they had found the only remedy...
The Big Book, 3rd Edition, page 259.
* Any willing newcomer feels sure A.A. is the only safe harbor for the foundering vessel he has become.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 35.
* Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. His drunkenness and dissolution are not penalties inflicted by people in authority; they result from his personal disobedience to spiritual principles.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.
There is a lot of doublespeak on this (last house on the block, etc) and logical contradictions, but the truth of the matter is that AA teaches that while you are free to *try* other options, you are guaranteed to fail, or fall victim to the unhappy sickness of the "dry drunk". There are hundreds of AA slogans on the topic, such as "it's our way or the die way", which I'm sure you've heard.
There's lots more, but I can't be bothered to go on here. I've made my point on this particular issue. If you still don't get it, hundreds more examples can be found here:
http://orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1 ... a_only_way (http://orange-papers.org/orange-cult_a1.html#ca_only_way)
Note that I don't agree with everything the guy says, but he has a lot of good insight into and research about AA.
-
Free come on you know darn well they have never funded, endorsed or participated in a survey.
http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/f-13_winter08.pdf (http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/f-13_winter08.pdf)
Nice find Joel. He didn't believe the black and white on Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode. Maybe he'll believe it when he sees it on AA's own website.
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
...there isnt any reference to a study which supports the numbers that this guy bases his statements on.
This guy sounds just like someone I know here... Now WHO could that be?? :roflmao:
-
Read the materials no where are you going to find that statement, "AA is the only way to sobriety".
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. ~~ Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.
-
Read the materials no where are you going to find that statement, "AA is the only way to sobriety".
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. ~~ Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.
But Anne!!!!! It says "almost certainly".......ol' Bill W., in his infinite wisdom, left them a loophole so they can sideSTEP any criticism.........
-
Popular A.A. slogans heard in meetings every day:
* "A.A. is the last house on the street."
* "It's Our Way or the Die Way."
* "Work The Steps, Or Die!"
* If you don't Work The Program, then your fate will be "Jails, Institutions, Or Death".
From Hazelden - notorious for their generous use of AA....
"None of us in Alcoholics Anonymous is normal. Our abnormality compels us to go to AA... We all go because we need to. Because the alternative is drastic, either A.A. or death."
Delirium Tremens, Stories of Suffering and Transcendence, Ignacio Solares, Hazelden, 2000, page 27.
-
Free come on you know darn well they have never funded, endorsed or participated in a survey.
http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/f-13_winter08.pdf (http://www.aa.org/en_pdfs/f-13_winter08.pdf)
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Joel, This site is "not" on the official AA web site. I don't know who this is.
Danny
-
Popular A.A. slogans heard in meetings every day:
* "A.A. is the last house on the street."
* "It's Our Way or the Die Way."
* "Work The Steps, Or Die!"
* If you don't Work The Program, then your fate will be "Jails, Institutions, Or Death".
From Hazelden - notorious for their generous use of AA....
"None of us in Alcoholics Anonymous is normal. Our abnormality compels us to go to AA... We all go because we need to. Because the alternative is drastic, either A.A. or death."
Delirium Tremens, Stories of Suffering and Transcendence, Ignacio Solares, Hazelden, 2000, page 27.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Hazelton after Bill died tried a legal loophole to grab the rights to AA's trademark name. Trust me AA/GSO does not endorse Hazelton. Their treatment programs and the material they publish is all about money.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
-
Their treatment programs and the material they publish is all about money.
As are the AA publications.
-
Their treatment programs and the material they publish is all about money.
As are the AA publications.
:shamrock:
Well yes they do cost money......Big Book in my home group $6.50......not bad aye. That is after purchasing the book from
the GSO.
Danny
-
Well yes they do cost money......Big Book in my home group $6.50......not bad aye. That is after purchasing the book from
the GSO.
Danny
Mmmm hmmm. Don't kid yourself. AAWS is making plenty.
-
Well yes they do cost money......Big Book in my home group $6.50......not bad aye. That is after purchasing the book from
the GSO.
Danny
Mmmm hmmm. Don't kid yourself. AAWS is making plenty.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Can you back that up with concrete info, I 'll will try to get their last minutes dealing with their financial status. GSO that is.
They have a world service conference every year and publish the results of this to the states and it trickels down from there.
Danny
-
$6.50 could be the break even point. I would think they are not making much of a profit considering the average college kid spends $1,000 on their books each semester. Its hard to find a book for under $10 outside of a yard sale these days.
You would have to take a look at the cost of printing the book.. the ink, paper, binding process, packaging, storage, transportation and distribution costs. After all the supplies are paid for, the employees are paid, insurance, cost of the manufacturing equipment….etc.
...
-
$6.50 could be the break even point. I would think they are not making much of a profit considering the average college kid spends $1,000 on their books each semester. Its hard to find a book for under $10 outside of a yard sale these days.
You would have to take a look at the cost of printing the book.. the ink, paper, binding process, packaging, storage, transportation and distribution costs. After all the supplies are paid for, the employees are paid, insurance, cost of the manufacturing equipment….etc.
...
Very easy to verify, AA meeting are everywhere just walk in to one and ask the purchase price or better yet call GSO. Prices range I just heard from
$ 6.50 to $ 8.00....still a bargain.
Danny
-
http://donewithaa.wordpress.com/2009/03 ... tradition/ (http://donewithaa.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/the-11th-tradition/)
-
http://donewithaa.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/the-11th-tradition/
:shamrock: :shamrock:
first sentence "courts" says it all. Not AA/GSO.
Danny
-
Ah, so you'll just dismiss it. Gotcha.
-
Read the materials no where are you going to find that statement, "AA is the only way to sobriety".
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant. ~~ Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, William Wilson, page 174.
But Anne!!!!! It says "almost certainly".......ol' Bill W., in his infinite wisdom, left them a loophole so they can sideSTEP any criticism.........
:rofl: :rofl:
-
Popular A.A. slogans heard in meetings every day:
* "A.A. is the last house on the street."
* "It's Our Way or the Die Way."
* "Work The Steps, Or Die!"
* If you don't Work The Program, then your fate will be "Jails, Institutions, Or Death".
From Hazelden - notorious for their generous use of AA....
"None of us in Alcoholics Anonymous is normal. Our abnormality compels us to go to AA... We all go because we need to. Because the alternative is drastic, either A.A. or death."
Delirium Tremens, Stories of Suffering and Transcendence, Ignacio Solares, Hazelden, 2000, page 27.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Hazelton after Bill died tried a legal loophole to grab the rights to AA's trademark name. Trust me AA/GSO does not endorse Hazelton. Their treatment programs and the material they publish is all about money.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
But AA/GSO actually makes a bit of money itself, not to mention getting their credibility boosted ... at the expense of Hazelden and other 12-step programs. These programs purchase materials from AA, and later push successful clients AA's way for followup and support post-program.
AA's quibbles with the profit-driven nature of most programs seems a bit insincere.
-
What is the institutional purchase price for AA materials? My guess it is not the same as for individuals.
-
Anyone ever heard of Rational Recovery?
Oh yeah. The guy who started it, Jack Trimpey, is probably a real prick to be around, but he has some good stuff to say.
-
Come to think of it..........
Any Institution I have ever seen has "The Big Book" and all kinds of AA/NA material on the inside.
Even the state hospital has a forensic unit with a "Dual Diagnosis" section.
Yep and Bill pushed that from the start. Sending postcards to the hospitals, med centers etc. to "promote" his program of "attraction".
I always thought it was kinda wierd when they would basically tell patients "Do our drugs, not yours."
Usually "thier drugs" were a handful of the latest brain disabeling stuff to hit the market.
Yep...I HATE BigPharma!!!
Anyone ever heard of Rational Recovery?
That's Jack Trimpey's I think.
https://rational.org/index.php?id=1 (https://rational.org/index.php?id=1)
-
Popular A.A. slogans heard in meetings every day:
* "A.A. is the last house on the street."
* "It's Our Way or the Die Way."
* "Work The Steps, Or Die!"
* If you don't Work The Program, then your fate will be "Jails, Institutions, Or Death".
From Hazelden - notorious for their generous use of AA....
"None of us in Alcoholics Anonymous is normal. Our abnormality compels us to go to AA... We all go because we need to. Because the alternative is drastic, either A.A. or death."
Delirium Tremens, Stories of Suffering and Transcendence, Ignacio Solares, Hazelden, 2000, page 27.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Hazelton after Bill died tried a legal loophole to grab the rights to AA's trademark name. Trust me AA/GSO does not endorse Hazelton. Their treatment programs and the material they publish is all about money.
:shamrock:
Danny.....
But AA/GSO actually makes a bit of money itself, not to mention getting their credibility boosted ... at the expense of Hazelden and other 12-step programs. These programs purchase materials from AA, and later push successful clients AA's way for followup and support post-program.
AA's quibbles with the profit-driven nature of most programs seems a bit insincere.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Ursus, you are pretty good with info no doubt. But seriously dude if this is the best you got get in line behind the Anne, Free and the rest and go drink your OJ.
You folks just can't get it we don't care about boosting, clients, post support....bla bla bla. Trouble here is most of you folks have been involved in treatment centers and (peeling the onion) to uncover the ruses. That you bring this attitude and biased opinion to debating AA. Ursus where are you getting this info, opinion, experience or whatever.
No hate here, love ya dude....Danny
-
Danny,
You are a Troll.
:feedtrolls:
-
:beat:
-
Romania has a better idea than AA:
(http://http://www.foxnews.com/images/601171/0_61_031010_romania.jpg)
Road signs warning drivers that intoxicated people may be in the road have been put up as Romania tries to reduce the number of accidents.
The signs read "Attention — Drunks" and show a reveller crawling along with a bottle in his hand.
Link (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7055825.ece)
...
-
:roflmao:
TIMES online
March 10, 2010
Drivers warned of drunks in road as Romania tries to reduce accidents (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article7055825.ece)
Foreign Staff
Road signs warning drivers that drunken people may be in the road have been put up to reduce the number of accidents.
The signs read "Attention - Drunks" and show a reveller crawling along with a bottle in his hand.
Petru Antal, the Mayor of Pecica in Romania said his town had a vibrant nightlife. He said: "We are a border town and have lots of cars thundering through here all the time. But we also have a very vibrant nightlife and the two don't mix.
"We have to target the drivers because by the time they get to this state the pedestrians are beyond caring."
Copyright 2010 Times Newspapers Ltd.
-
:rofl: From the comments:
Michael Stewart wrote:
The economy and its people brought to its knees - should be Labour's epitaph!
March 10, 2010 10:47 AM GMT[/list][/list]
-
:jawdrop:
-
..
-
It is always funny until it is family and your loved one is sitting in front of you and your saying it is a bad habit, you don't need a higher power pull your boots straps up and stop it.
While that can work with some people, nobody is suggesting that. The alternatives I would suggest revolve around getting people to realize why they drink, and treating that problem. People drink to cope with problems in their lives. It's a symptom, not a disease in itself. In addition to that, certain drugs can help with withdraws and cravings to start off with (if you watched the AA episode of Penn & Teller you would know that). Convincing a person that they are weak and powerless without a group is nothing more than a manipulation. People can be taught skills to deal with these bad habits. All AA does is say "let go and let god". Blame the disease for bad and credit the higher power for good. It's completely irrational.
Your running around trying to find help. I know many of you haven't been their with a loved one yet.
Actually. I have, and I've seen people get sober without the help of AA, and I have had people close to me who coped using alcohol. You have no knowledge of my personal life and it's irrelevant to my arguments.
Well thank god, I really don't wish this calamity on you. Like I said there will be folks that show up here and I want them to have the other experience of AA to read.
And I must say you make an excellent spokesperson.
-
..
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
Interesting thread... good points from both sides of the fence.
I think I'll keep my 2 cents short for once... I'm not necessarily against AA/NA, simply put, I feel that the AA doctrine is a bit illogical.
That being said, what is truly unfortunate is that there arent any trusted alturnitives to rival AA/NA. I'm sure somewhere out there it exists but I just don't understand how out of all possibilities for treatment of addiction THIS is the most popular...
I did some research on that "rational recovery" mumbo jumbo and I have to say, although it seems to have cut the fat so to speak, its still a watered down version of AA.
Call me an idealist but wouldn't it just make sense to apply some good ol fashioned analytical psychology to the treatment of addiction? Why does it always have to be one size fits all? I would picture someone with a bonafide addictive disorder to be in great need of some in depth personal therapy, not just a meeting to listen to other people bitch about how they fucked up their lives. Because for people like this, just abstaining from their drug of choice is NOT going to "save their lives", it takes a total life change.
I've seen many different sides of what has been labeled by AA to be the "disease concept", I've seen many people self medicate due to pre-existing disorders, a few with legitimate addictive personalities and believe it or not I've met several people who just crave the "druggie" lifestyle... does this mean they are all diseased? I think there needs to be further study into this concept, considering addiction was only categorized as a disease so that it could be treatable instead of punishable, I think AA kind of ran away with that one trying to give creditability to the whole "powerless" pretense.
I have to say tho, in all honesty my heart goes out to those who are truly affected by such a burden, to feel utterly powerless to something is no laughing matter and not everyone has the mental strength to go at something as powerful as human impulse alone. I have no intention of making fun of the plight of those affected by addiction, in fact all I would hope for is to help by encouraging those who want to recover to EMPOWER themselves and to believe that all the strength they need can be found within themselves... not in a book, or at a meeting or with believing in some kind of imaginary friend, but instead the answers have always been in their hearts and minds.
:rose: :rose: :rose: :rose: :rose:
-
It is always funny until it is family and your loved one is sitting in front of you and your saying it is a bad habit, you don't need a higher power pull your boots straps up and stop it. Your running around trying to find help. I know many of you haven't been their with a loved one yet.
You do now? Really? Well, you'd be dead wrong.
Well thank god, I really don't wish this calamity on you. Like I said there will be folks that show up here and I want them to have the other experience of AA to read. Just in case god forbid they may need it. I know you good folks who think you have it all figured out can at least concede this point.
Thanks.........
Danny... :shamrock:
No, you really weren't. You started off telling me to "take it to the judge" and that nobody wanted to hear it. What I'm doing is presenting the 'other side'. Most views of AA are positive, IMO because any time anyone dares criticize AA, they're met with vitriolic hyperbole such as you displayed. THAT is my major problem with it (among many others). It absolutely refuses to entertain any kind of critical thought. It teaches that the self is bad and this mysterious "higher power" will absolve and save them from it all. It teaches powerlessness, which I think is EXTREMELY damaging to the sense of self and the very soul. It teaches that the subjects will DIE if they leave the rooms (surely they are signing their own death warrant).
Y'know...I might not feel so vehemently about AA if their followers didn't act like a bunch of rabid dogs every time someone criticized it. It just smacks of cultishness every time they do and I guess that's what gets to me.
-
Y'know...I might not feel so vehemently about AA if their followers didn't act like a bunch of rabid dogs every time someone criticized it. It just smacks of cultishness every time they do and I guess that's what gets to me.
I agree, and the main reason I may be a bit more sensitive to this subject is because this is the same way that program supporters act toward survivors. They get very defensive as if their whole state of mind will unravel if they were to someday come to the realization that most of what they believe in is simply a widespread case of the placebo effect.
The main problem I have with these places, (or literature) is that it claims other people's personal success as proof that their program works, when quite literally you can give the same program to 10 people and each one will react differently and attain varrying degrees of success and failure. The bottom line is the power to change only lies within the intent and willpower of the person, not the program.
Wheres the sense of self worth?... Is it really considered treatment to convince yourself that you are diseased, inheritly weak and doomed to suffer forever? I mean if thats not a self fulfilling prophecy I don't know what is. What about all those people who have had the strength to pull themselves out of the gutter, be it with some help from friends and their AA group, but internally the choice was theirs and theirs alone... Where is the praise for these people unrelenting willpower? Stay humble right? Give it to god and believe in the program, right? No I'm sorry, its called the will to survive, personal strength and willpower and these people and these people alone deserve the credit for all their hard work, not some big book.
-
I agree, and the main reason I may be a bit more sensitive to this subject is because this is the same way that program supporters act toward survivors. They get very defensive as if their whole state of mind will unravel if they were to someday come to the realization that most of what they believe in is simply a widespread case of the placebo effect.
I think it is passion for what you believe in and some people go to extremes to defend what they believe. To be fair survivors tend to be just as passionate and some get defensive if someone points out to them that they had a choice, when they were in the program, to be successful or to fail. They choose their own path whether they want to believe it or not. The survivors who did well are quick to tell you that the program helped them tremendously and will argue that point and the survivors who did not do well or didn’t apply themselves will adamantly try to blame the program for their short falls and not themselves. It is human nature and we read it here everyday on fornits. But the bottom-line is we can all take credit for our own lives.
The main problem I have with these places, (or literature) is that it claims other people's personal success as proof that their program works, when quite literally you can give the same program to 10 people and each one will react differently and attain varrying degrees of success and failure. The bottom line is the power to change only lies within the intent and willpower of the person, not the program.
I agree with you here. The people are responsible for their own successes and failures. The programs, AA or local therapist etc. can only educate and point the person down the right path, but the hard work is done by the individuals. The kids that leave a program and are successful are told they are successful because of the work they have done. The program doesn’t take the credit. Many programs may report 80% success rates but they are not the program success rates they are the graduate’s success rates.
Wheres the sense of self worth?... Is it really considered treatment to convince yourself that you are diseased, inheritly weak and doomed to suffer forever? I mean if thats not a self fulfilling prophecy I don't know what is. What about all those people who have had the strength to pull themselves out of the gutter, be it with some help from friends and their AA group, but internally the choice was theirs and theirs alone... Where is the praise for these people unrelenting willpower? Stay humble right? Give it to god and believe in the program, right? No I'm sorry, its called the will to survive, personal strength and willpower and these people and these people alone deserve the credit for all their hard work, not some big book.
Exactly, Some people just need a little more help than others.
When reviewing a book people rarely, if ever, credit the vehicles used in the making of the book (i.e. the Pen,paper or brand of typewriter, laptop) the credit goes to the author. The same applies to children graduating from programs. They should be proud and most of them are.
...
-
I agree, and the main reason I may be a bit more sensitive to this subject is because this is the same way that program supporters act toward survivors. They get very defensive as if their whole state of mind will unravel if they were to someday come to the realization that most of what they believe in is simply a widespread case of the placebo effect.
Well said. Most of these parents have no idea that there is no science behind programs; that there is no evidence they work and there never has been. These folks are operating on faith alone and that's dangerous for their children.
Some, on the other hand, know full well these programs are rooted in quackery, have long and storied histories of abuse and neglect, that many have been shuttered by authorities for abuse and neglect and some even had their child killed in the program. Yet their egos still drive them to defend the indefensible simply to avoid the admittance that they damaged, destroyed or even killed their child to avoid the cognitive dissonance and having to admit they did something gravely wrong that probably also wrecked their family's financial stabilty and their children's futures.
John Reuben is a prime example of this. After his two sons finished three confirmedly abusive programs (SUWS, ASR and HLA) and one ended up dead, he used paid obituaries for his boy as a donation portal to funnel cash and kids into the very machine that ground up his own son. This is a really sick mentality and people like John will go to any length to avoid responsibility for killing, maiming or psychologically destroying their kids.
-
I'm drinking a beer right now in the name of AA. Thanks dudes for keeping me in beer and keeping the lushes off it. No need for them to drink up all my beer, pricks.
Seriously though danny.... Take it from a guy, me, who has had some of the most spectacular implosions ever on this website (admin jihad :rocker: ), You really do need to step away from the keyboard and take some time to assess what you are about.
Are you about having a shrieking hissy fit or are you about getting something done with Elan? Like I pointed out to you in a private conversation on facebook, Elan is probably laughing their asses off knowing their is turmoil and chaos in the survivor community. The cocksuckers are probably hovering like vultures waiting to feed on this forum. Now this forum thrives with constructive debate and the occasional troll (just to keep folks on their toes), but there is nothing constructive about this debate.
You've gone into full snapping turtle mode, and you are doing nothing but staying pulled into your shell and are snapping away at everyone.
Ok, we get it.. You believe in AA.
Most of us here don't.
What you may want to consider is either finding ways to debate the issue constructively, or just not talking about AA at all and focus on giving Elan a well needed beat down or epic proportions. Cause I'll tell you what ol' timer..
Elan isn't the only vulture in the sky waiting to get their fill. This carcass, your situation metaphorically speaking, has been dragging out the trolls as we speak. What sickens me to some extent is one particular one, a forum regular as well, who has been jumping all over the place and using socks to attack you while he supports you in his real persona.
Basically, you've marginalized yourself and are becoming entertainment. In carney parlance, you're the freakshow and people are getting to the point where they can't resist taking a jab.
Again dude.. step back, take some time off, and focus on Elan on this website. You aren't going to win any converts with what you are doing.
Take a couple weeks off to mellow out and come back swinging, AT elan..
-
..
-
To be fair survivors tend to be just as passionate and some get defensive if someone points out to them that they had a choice, when they were in the program, to be successful or to fail. They choose their own path whether they want to believe it or not. The survivors who did well are quick to tell you that the program helped them tremendously and will argue that point and the survivors who did not do well or didn’t apply themselves will adamantly try to blame the program for their short falls and not themselves.
Femanon explains this phenomenon beautifully
I bet you do it means work.
Danny.....
No, just the opposite. Loaded language is designed to stop critical thought. That's why AA and programs employ so much of it.
I must agree. In fact I was thinking about this the other day, I used the word "accountability" in some way to refer to something I was responsible for, and my husband kinda looked at me weird. It wasn't that it was just a big word, it was that I was taking responsibility for something that really had nothing to do with me.
So of course it got me thinking, why have did I use this word in this way and why am I conditioned to take "accountability" for something that I should be holding someone else responsible for? Then of course it dawned on me where I learned this term.... the program. I had a hard time understanding the concept they were trying to create for this word, which was that no matter who or what initally caused the incident in question, YOU are accountable for the outcome because in one way or another YOU created it.
The way they explained this was with a drawing of two cars at an intersection, one car runs a red light and the other car, who has the green light, t-bones that car. Common sense would say that the car who ran the light is responsible for the accident but taking "accountability" means that if YOU were the person who went on the green light, that YOU are responsible for the crash simply because you chose to drive down that road that day.
This "accountability" concept was used quite a lot in the program, mostly as feedback to convince those skeptical of admitting to being alcoholics but it was also used to convince otherwise normal teenagers that they somehow created the abuse they were receiving simply because they "got themselves to the program". This was precisely what I was told when I reported the abusive staff and conditions at High Impact and this is the same mentality that program supporters are using against survivors who speak out. They refer to us as bad seeds, whiners, or money grubbers but what they are really saying is that they believe that in every circumstance we deserved the abuse. Taking "accountability" in the sense they describe is very much like battered wife syndrome, blindly accepting abuse and or consequences for reasons that logically do not infer fault, and more importantly obsolving those who ARE responsible.
In my opinion, this was just another way they were using these techniques to control the thought processes of their followers in unabashed intent on skirting their own responsibility to give proper treatment of the patients in their care. One can wonder why they would really go so out of their way... but im assuming it starts with a $ and ends with a $$ :deal:
-
...
-
..
-
Anne, Now were going to have AA and programs on the same level.
Ummm, what? One more time in English please.
AA is a set of principles in a book, pick it up if you want
Please read for comprehension. I've told you over and over again that I have read the big book/12 & 12
My debate with you is on the way AA "suggests" the principles it sets forth.
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.
Do what we say or you'll DIE!!!
The only thing really that AA gave me is a vision of life without drugs and Alcohol and a means to get there. That's it. AA does not control my life
It really does. More than you're aware of apparently
to me it's not a program (I do not like that term).
Doesn't matter if you like it or not. AA is a program.
I got what I needed and moved on with my life. I go back to meeting maybe once a week and give back help someone. I also accept calls to help folks get to detoxes and Hospitals, before they die in most cases.
And no doubt tell them to do 90/90, right?
My problem is the treatment centers, jails, courts and other institutions and egomaniacs have taken a decent set of simple principles and confused the shit out of them.
Adn that's what I've been saying all along. Those "principles" are what I have a problem with. Not the people in the rooms.
What I have read here, heard on the phone and read elsewhere
is sad. Did not really know.
Danny
Didn't know what? Did you even read thru the Orange Papers site or just dismiss it because it doesn't conform to your POV?
-
..
-
Anne you have selective highlighting, noticed no comment on Straight and the fact they jammed their version of AA down your throat. Come on!!!
I'm quoting what I'm responding to. Are you new to discussion boards? The rest of you post is right up there for anyone to read. It's not like I deleted it (or could).
I never said Straight rammed AA down my throat. I know you'd like to come up with some excuse for me not buying into AA, but it's simply because I finally truly looked at it. I listened to my gut (something AA discourages) when it smacked of cultishness. Then I investigated, did some research and found that I was FAAARRRRRRR from the only one who felt that way. The more research I did, the more dangerous I realized AA was/is. Why are you so threatened by any criticism of it?
Come clean your making me,
what?
you are extremely bias because of Straight.
That's your assumption....again. I wasn't exposed to AA until long after I was out of Straight.
This happened first then the Orange Papers came into your life sprinkled with your visits to AA rooms. Great way to be introduced then give your rendition of AA. Anne does all this sound familar same thing your saying to me. Look in the mirror.
Danny :shamrock: :shamrock:
No. It doesn't sound familiar because I have no idea what the fuck you're saying half the time. Please read AND WRITE for comprehension.
-
Well that's weird. Ding Dong posted a reply that included all the pretty AA talking points. Heavy on the alcoholism is a disease, but it's gone now. Was only up for a minute. Hmmmm.
Edited to add.....
They registered just to post that and then remove it?
Statistics
Total posts 337235 • Total topics 24196 • Total members 5289 • Our newest member Ding Dong
-
..
-
If you were in straight they rammed it down your throat. AA is dangerous now???
Bbbbbut AA and Straight are different, right?? You can't have it both ways.
Having the freedom to pick up a book and read or not is dangero
No, but when the book says "do it this way or DIE" it smacks of cultish behavior.
"No Anne It is folks like you that misrepresent information that can help people for the sole reason it doesn't fit your mold".
Your opinion.
Why is it every time I have disagreed with you, "You" have come back defensive.
I haven't.
Calling AA dangerous is just irresponsible behavior
Your opinion.
, I can understand that you don't like their philosophies or principles but "dangerous" come'on.
yes, even their own study shows that binge drinking increased, the death rate increased, so yeah...dangerous.
Bill was a crazy one no doubt with his language, follow the 12 steps "suggestions" to the best of my "ability" I sign my own death warrant. Ya, considering when I walked in the room of AA I was within 2 weeks of looking at a toe tag. Why are you afraid of absolutes.
Because they're not real life.
If not go out and pick up a bottle and drink if you are a alcoholic you have a 50% chance of surviving if not have a drink on me.
I will in about 1/2 hour! :cheers: I don't have a problem, contrary to what both Straight and AA told me.
Whether you like it or not their are alcoholics and someone or something will be treating them.
Yes, and I'd rather they get treated by professionals with clinical research to back up their methods.
So since your not a alcoholic what is your argument. What the fuck do you care your not out there trying to help. Your just ranting at me because you don't like the way I talk to people and how I talk about AA.
No, I think AA is a dangerous program that convinces people that they're alcoholics even if they're not. I think it's dangerous to the alcoholics when they say 'do it our way or DIE'.
Which brings me back to my point you are full of Doo Doo, you really could give a rats ass if AA is here or not it doesn't effect your life...please.
There's that joyous happy and free spirit again!
Of course I tell them to do a 90/90, I'm telling you for your frustrations boiling over.
Danny
:roflmao: No dear...you have no effect on my mood, other than to give me the occasional chuckle at the Stepcrafter.
-
:deal:
-
..
-
:notworthy:
-
:bump:
-
I feel sorry for some of you. On a superficial level this place looks like a debate about alcoholics anonymous. But the truth is this is a form of group healing, your way at striking back an organized treatment system that somewhat resembles what hurt you. Holding onto hate for this long is unhealthy. I pity you all.
-
:jerry:
-
Please, Anne show me where in the book it says this. For once do it yourself, OK.
No Annie girl "you" can not have it both ways. Be a big girl now and don't squirm out of this pickle your in. Go back to your Straight Site figure out what you are.Danny:shamrock: :shamrock:
“Annie Girl” you write and “be a big girl” you say. Seriously, Bennison? After pages and pages of hostility on thread after thread' directed at anyone who triggers your paranoid sense of persecution...we get it, you’re an attention whore with an inability to sustain a cogent and thoughtful discussion without it devolving into your delusions of superiority interposed with facile ramblings, and now you’ve sunk to blatant condescension. All of that, while vacillating between your fallacious accusations of persecution and brief returns to your suck up yokel affectations. The long list of posters you’ve been offensive to and attacked just keeps growing…
This is probably a manifestation of a more serious problem than your being a supercilious prig.
Your words undermine your professed intent to make a case for AA…might be time to call your sponsor
-
...
-
:twofinger: :twofinger: :twofinger:
-
edited
-
edited
-
edited..
-
edited
-
edited
-
I think it is passion for what you believe in and some people go to extremes to defend what they believe. To be fair survivors tend to be just as passionate and some get defensive if someone points out to them that they had a choice, when they were in the program, to be successful or to fail.
...
Well here's the thing, in context, I may be inclined to agree with you... considering the fact that both survivors and supporters are inherently human, I think it's fair to assume we all can get defensive of our beliefs from time to time. The only difference is, with survivors we have something to complain about because they were legitimately wronged, where as supporters only defense is to tell us were are lying... or in your words exaggerating. I've had this same exact conversation with program supporters, and ed-cons too, and it really comes down to this... Our experience isn't the only thing that shapes our opinion, our level of comprehension does as well. I find that many of those who have support for the program, be it from the experience of a former student or parent or ed-con usually they let their tunnel vision guide them to believe that the ends justifies the means and refuse to look analytically at the specific methods employed by these programs. I think dysfunction junction hit the nail on the head when he said that most supporters don't realize that there is no legitimate science behind the methodology of a program (or AA for that matter). In fact in most professional opinions, these techniques can range from cult-like quackery up to legitimate torture. Those who obtain a level of loyalty to the program tend to either have a financial interest or are too prideful to even be willing to consider the possibility that they were expertly conned. Although both sides cling vehemently to their convictions, you must understand that the motivating reasons behind our opinions are vastly different.
I can understand that a parent who had a child in a program, assuming they had a decent experience and found legitimate success after the program would be able to come to the conclusion that the program "works" but the problem with this is that such a blinding belief system deters you from looking beyond the surface. If you feel you were not wronged by a program what need would you have to analyze and research the specific methods used? Or look into the credentials of those who treated your child or study the track record of that particular company... For example, the fact that WWASP has now had 14 schools shut down for abuse should really deter parents from enrolling their kids, yet people still do, everyday. I really have to question the logic of such a parent, either be it ignorance or malice, to put their child in such a potentially dangerous situation. Consider this, when a restaurant in my city had a minor case of hepatitis people freaked out, and most people I know vowed to never eat there again, which although unfortunate for said restaurant is pretty normal human behavior. But consider if this restaurant were a BIG franchise and over the years had multiple locations shut down by the health department and consumer groups created specifically to oppose said franchise you would think that would signal that there is something legitimately wrong with the way this franchise does business, right? Well why is it so different for WWASP? What is the life blood that keeps this company afloat? is it their mega marketing scheme? no, it's their followers, those who swear up and down that WWASP was the only thing that could have saved the life of their child... well I'm sorry but even if I had no personal experience with the program at all, that right there would seem fishy. With that said, That's really not the worst of it, what is truly sad, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, is that the only reason former students, parents or ed-cons could possibly come to such a conclusion is because they were successfully conned into believing that for something the teen did or might have done in the future, they deserved to be stripped of their human rights, be subjected to abuse and or maltreatment and all for a price that could rival tuition for an ivy league education.
another point I'd like to mention, do you really think that those of us that speak out are only those who "failed" in the program? Because I personally know several former students who not only graduated but also chose to go work for the program only to come to the realization later that what they thought was treatment back then was really an elaborate con by unprofessional religious zealots. I can only speak for myself, because I saw it from day one, while I was in the program I made note of each and every thing that I knew to be illegal and unethical and I made my observations known. It goes without saying that not everyone was as perceptive, but on some level, we all knew there was something wrong with that place. The problem is, these places are constantly conditioning their subjects to adhere to a specific belief system, and if that belief system is questioned there are serious consequences for those who step out of line. Does that mean I "failed" at the program? Actually I'm pretty sure I learned a lot while confined, maybe not what they were trying to teach me but for all intensive purposes I do consider myself a success, not at the program but at life. I don't have a drug problem and I have kept myself out of trouble, I have a considerably lucrative career and some very important hobbies, one of which is this cause. I don't claim to be perfect however I do believe that I would fit into the criteria of a "success story" even though I would be considered to have "failed" the program. You make a good argument by saying we all have choices, and one way or another we got ourselves where we are, in the grand scheme of things I would agree for the simple fact that I do believe everything, even the bad stuff, happens for a reason. However I believe strongly that just because life rolls on doesn't mean that those people and institutions that have done considerable harm to me and others should be absolved of their wrong doings. I am a firm believer that we both make and give our own karma, it's human nature to want to enact revenge on those who have wronged us and created havoc in our lives, and although I do not support employing violence I believe it is the responsibility of the victims to stand up and cry out for justice to be served. For all intensive purposes I also think it's our responsibility to hold our government responsible for not regulating these places, providing a breeding ground for corruption and abuse. Furthermore it's about time we call for absolute abolishment of the harmful techniques employed by these programs. As if the standing laws against child abuse aren't clear enough, it seems we need to spell it out for these people.
Of course I've gone off on a tangent about programs, and this doesn't exactly apply to AA but I believe the principal remains the same... “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” MLK Jr.
-
Femanon, I didnt address all your points, but just those that jumped out at me. If you feel I side stepped an issue or point you were trying to make I can take another look. Your post was both lengthy and comprehensive and you made some good points, although, I wish you could step back a little further and see both sides of the issue. Maybe I am guilty also, but I strive to see the good and bad in the industry. I am not so sure you make the same sincere effort.
……..The only difference is, with survivors we have something to complain about because they were legitimately wronged,
Femanon. You are only looking at one side of the issue. Have you considered that maybe the parents and siblings were wronged? Do really you think that in every case ? That the family wasn’t hurt also?
I can understand that a parent who had a child in a program, assuming they had a decent experience and found legitimate success after the program would be able to come to the conclusion that the program "works" but the problem with this is that such a blinding belief system deters you from looking beyond the surface. If you feel you were not wronged by a program what need would you have to analyze and research the specific methods used? Or look into the credentials of those who treated your child or study the track record of that particular company... For example, the fact that WWASP has now had 14 schools shut down for abuse should really deter parents from enrolling their kids, yet people still do, everyday. I really have to question the logic of such a parent, either be it ignorance or malice, to put their child in such a potentially dangerous situation. Consider this, when a restaurant in my city had a minor case of hepatitis people freaked out, and most people I know vowed to never eat there again, which although unfortunate for said restaurant is pretty normal human behavior. But consider if this restaurant were a BIG franchise and over the years had multiple locations shut down by the health department and consumer groups created specifically to oppose said franchise you would think that would signal that there is something legitimately wrong with the way this franchise does business, right? Well why is it so different for WWASP? What is the life blood that keeps this company afloat? is it their mega marketing scheme? no, it's their followers, those who swear up and down that WWASP was the only thing that could have saved the life of their child... well I'm sorry but even if I had no personal experience with the program at all, that right there would seem fishy. With that said, That's really not the worst of it, what is truly sad, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, is that the only reason former students, parents or ed-cons could possibly come to such a conclusion is because they were successfully conned into believing that for something the teen did or might have done in the future, they deserved to be stripped of their human rights, be subjected to abuse and or maltreatment and all for a price that could rival tuition for an ivy league education.
I wouldn’t eat in those restaurants either but I would still dine out. Why assume that everyone that had a different experience than you was somehow conned, from the students to their parent? Maybe your misunderstanding of the success stories should justify my understanding that those who didn’t do well just never applied themselves?
another point I'd like to mention, do you really think that those of us that speak out are only those who "failed" in the program? Because I personally know several former students who not only graduated but also chose to go work for the program only to come to the realization later that what they thought was treatment back then was really an elaborate con by unprofessional religious zealots. I can only speak for myself, because I saw it from day one, while I was in the program I made note of each and every thing that I knew to be illegal and unethical and I made my observations known. It goes without saying that not everyone was as perceptive, but on some level, we all knew there was something wrong with that place. The problem is, these places are constantly conditioning their subjects to adhere to a specific belief system, and if that belief system is questioned there are serious consequences for those who step out of line. Does that mean I "failed" at the program? Actually I'm pretty sure I learned a lot while confined, maybe not what they were trying to teach me but for all intensive purposes I do consider myself a success, not at the program but at life. I don't have a drug problem and I have kept myself out of trouble, I have a considerably lucrative career and some very important hobbies, one of which is this cause. I don't claim to be perfect however I do believe that I would fit into the criteria of a "success story" even though I would be considered to have "failed" the program. You make a good argument by saying we all have choices, and one way or another we got ourselves where we are, in the grand scheme of things I would agree for the simple fact that I do believe everything, even the bad stuff, happens for a reason. However I believe strongly that just because life rolls on doesn't mean that those people and institutions that have done considerable harm to me and others should be absolved of their wrong doings. I am a firm believer that we both make and give our own karma, it's human nature to want to enact revenge on those who have wronged us and created havoc in our lives, and although I do not support employing violence I believe it is the responsibility of the victims to stand up and cry out for justice to be served. For all intensive purposes I also think it's our responsibility to hold our government responsible for not regulating these places, providing a breeding ground for corruption and abuse. Furthermore it's about time we call for absolute abolishment of the harmful techniques employed by these programs. As if the standing laws against child abuse aren't clear enough, it seems we need to spell it out for these people.
It is your choice to decide if your personal success is rooted in the tools and lesson you acquired during your stay at a program or not. Some survivors say they were saved by the program others say the program hurt them. Some say they succeeded in spite of the program and others credit the program for their success. Neither you or I can sit here and tell them they are wrong. It is their perspective.
Of course I've gone off on a tangent about programs, and this doesn't exactly apply to AA but I believe the principal remains the same... “Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” MLK Jr.
I agree with your MLK quote. I think if any of us try to make others believe we know all the ins and outs of the industry and every program under their umbrella then they are lying or grossly ignorant. We need to accept and keep our minds open to everyone’s experience, whether we agree with it or not. To close our minds to other people and hide behind comments like “They must be brain washed” or conned is doing a disservice to themselves and will limit their ability to work towards a solution which will benefit everyone.
Like you mentioned we both know that fornits doesn’t represent everyone who attended a program. People are helped by programs and hurt by programs. AA is effective with some people and others find a different path. Its not black and white. We shouldn’t force everyone to attend a program or AA and on the flip side we shouldn’t shut down every program or pass a law making attending AA a crime.
...
-
...
-
Hey thanks for your breakdown. Hell I could have made it very easy for ya, I'm fucking whacked. Damn stop wasting all those big words on me I don't deserve them. Talk to me like trash, I love it.
Now vacillating is that where you cover yourself with K-Y Jelly and try to squeeze between persecution and superiorty. Shit I don't know I'm dellusional right now, thank you Inculcate (just had to bring that up) I don't know whether I should screw the door or open the light bulb.
Anyway going to see a rodeo tonite so maybe all that cowshit will clean out my head.
Danny
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Say Danny, this weekend I'm gonna cover your mama up with K-Y Jelly and squeeze between her butt-cheeks. Shit I don't know I'm delusional right now, thank you Danny Bennison I don't know whether to screw your mama or put her out to work.
Chupa mi pinga, pendejo!
Hi there, to big of a fucking chickenshit to post with your real screen name?
-
...
-
post on fornits
put on a dress
post on fornits
tape back pepe
post on fornits
suck masters cock
post on fornits
rub hands in glee
post on fornits
do deep squat thrusts over fire hydrant
post on fornits
run to beard get wounds licked
post on fronits
rub poop on face
post on fornits
think up more lies
post on fornits
check for crabs
post on fornits
suck masters cock
post on fornits
put on trojan mask
post on fornits
rewrite AA big book
post on fornits
put trojan mask on beard
post on fornits
apply dildo grease
post on fornits
let master ream ass
posts on fornits
lick dogs nuts
post on fornits
create new AA traditions
post on fornits
rub hands in glee
post on fornits
look for used condoms
post on fornits
suck out used condoms
post on fornits
create new AA
post on fornits
try to masterbate in mouth
post on fornits
suck masters cock
post on fornits
rub hands in glee
post on fornits
deny posts on fornits
post on fornits
cuddle with master
post on fornits
-
Great article, Fem!
I think I can answer a couple of points that jumped out at me.
First, the difference between a fast food franchise and the troubled parent industry is mostly about scale and a little about the nature of the beast. Everybody eats roast beast from a fast processed-food-product outlet like McD's or KFC once in awhile. Even if you try to avoid that Monsanto produced, multinationally provisioned mystery-frankenfood-food-like shit like the plague, everyone knows what it is. There's one on every corner, billboards on the roads, ads on every channel and coupons in every newsish-like rag that may go fluttering by your feet on a windy day.
As the industry has grown and the underlying philosophy has taken on adherents, more and more people have some close or first-hand experience with the industry. But it still has nowhere near the exposure that fast food has.
I also think you're spot on that existing child abuse laws, not to mention laws against assault and false imprisonment against anyone, more than cover preventing the most harmful practices in this industry. It's an attitude problem and I think the governments have more than a little to do with that. The way the laws are written and interpreted recently is a lot different from times past. When I was a kid if you skipped school you got suspended. If you got suspended enough you got expelled. If your parents forced the issue, you then got a j-j-j-j-j-o-b. If not you loafed around the house, went to the beach and went on doing whatever you had been doing while skipping school. Either way, you were not treated as a criminal and the parents weren't usually held criminally liable.
Now we have a fucked up situation where law enforcement and other agencies are telling parents "do something, or else!" Worse? You used to have to do something pretty bad to even get expelled. Now? We let the 2nd graders decide ->
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30051 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30051)
One of the parent comments to that story was "What were they thinking?" Is it much of a stretch to think that "Homes Rap (http://http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=826&p=4932#p4932)" [brothers' keeper, dirt slip, etc., insert your particular program lingo here] or, at the very least, the dynamic of Oprah's or Maury's live studio audience may have some influence?
I think the entire concept that whatever behavior we don't like can be tagged a medical disorder and treated as such needs to be indicted. This is going to take more than one night.
-
danny b Yeah yeah yeah, we get it, AA is really great , the greatest, the greatest ever.! every one on earth should think like you do, act as you do, believe as you do. Spirituality and Rigorous Honesty! That's the WAY! ( why do you pretend to be Irish, why degrade a race you don't belong to?) I'll be HONEST here, I Really like to drink and drive, not necessarily in that order, so perhaps someone could found A.A./AAA. you know, a group for those who like to drink and drive, maybe we could get coffee in little styrofoam cups, hackneyed spiritual tracts, and maps, all at the same place, sort of one stop shopping? just sayin' J.O.M.
-
danny b Yeah yeah yeah, we get it, AA is really great , the greatest, the greatest ever.! every one on earth should think like you do, act as you do, believe as you do. Spirituality and Rigorous Honesty! That's the WAY! ( why do you pretend to be Irish, why degrade a race you don't belong to?) I'll be HONEST here, I Really like to drink and drive, not necessarily in that order, so perhaps someone could found A.A./AAA. you know, a group for those who like to drink and drive, maybe we could get coffee in little styrofoam cups, hackneyed spiritual tracts, and maps, all at the same place, sort of one stop shopping? just sayin' J.O.M.
AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, an extra culty version of AA founded by Tom Powers. Its therapeutic community is the East Ridge Recovery Center (http://http://www.alladdictsanonymous.org/meetings_eastridge.htm), located in upstate New York. A number of Family Foundation School founders and/or key personnel originate from East Ridge, among them being Chris Stein, Tony Argiros, Betty Argiros, Rita Argiros, Mike Argiros, Robin Ducey, and Mike Ducey.
-
..
-
...
-
"No, but when the book says "do it this way or DIE" it smacks of cultish behavior".
:shamrock:
Please, Anne show me where in the book it says this. For once do it yourself, OK.
Ok...for the umpteenth time, here it is. Again. I even put it in red so you'll be sure to see it.
Unless each A.A. member follows to the best of his ability our suggested Twelve Steps to recovery, he almost certainly signs his own death warrant.
Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions
Page 174
-
...
-
I thought you weren't gonna speak to me anymore. Oh, I see. It's just like when you said you were 'moving on'.
-
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
...
-
Straight Staff - silent too long
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30038 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30038)
This is an opportunity to have a good discussion on the above thread.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Hey I tried communicating with you, go for it I'll be there when I am done here. I thought you had some work to do I that thread what are you doing here trying to obfuscate this thread.
AA thread is not going to go away Joel because you don't like it.
Danny
Is there anybody that you are nice to?
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock:
Saint Danny Benniscum
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :clown: :shamrock:
-
danny b Yeah yeah yeah, we get it, AA is really great , the greatest, the greatest ever.! every one on earth should think like you do, act as you do, believe as you do. Spirituality and Rigorous Honesty! That's the WAY! ( why do you pretend to be Irish, why degrade a race you don't belong to?) I'll be HONEST here, I Really like to drink and drive, not necessarily in that order, so perhaps someone could found A.A./AAA. you know, a group for those who like to drink and drive, maybe we could get coffee in little styrofoam cups, hackneyed spiritual tracts, and maps, all at the same place, sort of one stop shopping? just sayin' J.O.M.
AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, an extra culty version of AA founded by Tom Powers. Its therapeutic community is the East Ridge Recovery Center (http://http://www.alladdictsanonymous.org/meetings_eastridge.htm), located in upstate New York. A number of Family Foundation School founders and/or key personnel originate from East Ridge, among them being Chris Stein, Tony Argiros, Betty Argiros, Rita Argiros, Mike Argiros, Robin Ducey, and Mike Ducey.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is exactly what I am talking about short sightedness, (AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, ("an extra culty version of AA") founded by Tom Powers) this has nothing to do with AA at it's core principles or with AA at all really. But because some school chose to adopt their version AA should be punished.
One other opinion I have, ya know there are other members that go to AA here I am not the only one, yet because of there silence and acquiesce which you like. I believe you then assume that this subject is off limits to talk about. Because when talked about it offends others. I understand that I just so happen to not be offended and I am explaining why.
Danny
:shamrock:
Could you possibly explain to us then, Danny, why you are a fan of the fb page Family Foundation School (http://http://www.facebook.com/TheFamilyFoundationSchool?sid=100000818550701) ("This is the official Facebook page of the Family Foundation School"), that is, a direct spinoff from that "extra culty version of AA" described above, and to which a great number of founders and/or key personnel of FFS owe their ideological roots?
-
..
-
Is there anybody that you are nice to?
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock:
Saint Danny Benniscum
:shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :shamrock: :clown: :shamrock:
Yes, those who wholeheartedly support and endorse AA. The ones who cover their ears and scream "lalalalalaa-I-can't-hear-you-lalalala" whenever anything critical is brought up about AA. The ones who pass out brightly colored chips to everyone and tell the their sponsees that if they don't follow the "suggested" steps, they're GONNA DIE.
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Could you possibly explain to us then, Danny, why you are a fan of the fb page Family Foundation School ("This is the official Facebook page of the Family Foundation School"), that is, a direct spinoff from that "extra culty version of AA" described above, and to which a great number of founders and/or key personnel of FFS owe their ideological roots?
:shamrock:
Ursus,
Shame shame shame trolling through peoples facebook groups, don't you ever work. Like I told you Mr.Breich when you answers my questions I asked you months ago I will answer yours. Now stop being rude and hit the ball back. Like tennis ya know. Back and forth.
Danny
:shamrock:
Gosh, Danny, nothing to it, no effort expended. My memory just happens to function a bit like a steel trap at times. :seg:
You see, shortly after you and I became facebook friends (although I see that you recently removed yourself), I happened to notice that you signed up for the Family Foundation School (http://http://www.facebook.com/TheFamilyFoundationSchool?sid=100000818550701) fb page.
Thinking that you must have innocently confused them with the Family Foundation School Truth Campaign (http://http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Family-Foundation-School-Truth-Campaign/213640175622?sid=100000818550701), I sent you a FYI message - exactly a month ago today - with a link to the latter's website.
A website (http://http://www.thefamilyschooltruth.com/), btw, which contains dozens upon dozens of personal testimonies of both kids and parents abused by FFS.
You never responded. No problem. Did ya at least check it out?
-
...
-
When I first came to this site I asked you who you were, What TC you went through or school...something.
Why are you here on this site, ya know some feedback from you. But I have received nothing.
So like I said in my last post stop dodging the question and "hit the damn ball back...please".
Do it in PM if you want or not....I just need a connection dude.
Danny
First, learn to use the quote feature. It'll help your posts become at least semi-legible.
Second, why do you have to know someone's history in order to answer a simple question? Is your answer gonna be different depending on what his background is?
-
When I first came to this site I asked you who you were, What TC you went through or school...something.
Why are you here on this site, ya know some feedback from you. But I have received nothing.
So like I said in my last post stop dodging the question and "hit the damn ball back...please".
Do it in PM if you want or not....I just need a connection dude.
Danny
I have answered your question a number of times, Danny. Either ya can't remember, or ya can't bring yourself to read others' responses to you. Here is the most recent such post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30023&p=358336#p358336), that is, five days ago...
-
...
-
^This from the guy who initially responded to polite questions posed to him with unwarranted hostility and objected to them vociferously. Then you pretend you’ve done nothing wrong and insist that people’s reactions to you are not due to your hostilities, but to some mysterious agenda. This is troll behavior. You antagonize and then whine that you’re being maligned. WTF, you sound like Layne Meacham.
That “I’m Bennison you’re kimmy” bit makes you sound like one of the characters from Bingo-the-clowno (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OBUj-LBsVo).
It’s a long list… the people you have lashed out at and then cried foul a post and a day later. I don't speak for the Bear, but after the way you've shown yourself to be inconsistent in more than just temperament, you’ve no right to expect any disclosures from Ursus.
-
When I first came to this site I asked you who you were, What TC you went through or school...something.
Why are you here on this site, ya know some feedback from you. But I have received nothing.
So like I said in my last post stop dodging the question and "hit the damn ball back...please".
Do it in PM if you want or not....I just need a connection dude.
Danny
I have answered your question a number of times, Danny. Either ya can't remember, or ya can't bring yourself to read others' responses to you. Here is the most recent such post (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30023&p=358336#p358336), that is, five days ago...
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Nice show me your exact post where you identified what TC, School, or whatever you went through. What is your affiliation, why are you here. Copy and Paste it. Shouldn't take much you either volunteered it or you answered a question. So please "Hit the ball back". Man you take a long time to serve. After this I'm reporting you to the proper authorities, line judges, or the captain in the chair.....lol.
Danny
That exact post has been shown. Click the link, Danny-boy, you can do it! Once more, with feeling this time...
And that post also contains a link to a previous entry... Can you recognize your own writing? I actually quoted you describing me as having gone to Hyde... from when I told you the last time. Or was it the time before that. Or the time before that even.
Amazing that you don't even remember what you yourself write. Even from just a few days ago. Yet you keep insulting others, claiming they don't deliver on your demand.
-
Personally, I'm beginning to think all these "demands" are mere deflection to avoid addressing more pertinent issues and uncomfortable questions. Returning to what I had just asked a few posts back, and which was so assiduously avoided:
First posted HERE (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29996&p=358748#p358731):
danny b Yeah yeah yeah, we get it, AA is really great , the greatest, the greatest ever.! every one on earth should think like you do, act as you do, believe as you do. Spirituality and Rigorous Honesty! That's the WAY! ( why do you pretend to be Irish, why degrade a race you don't belong to?) I'll be HONEST here, I Really like to drink and drive, not necessarily in that order, so perhaps someone could found A.A./AAA. you know, a group for those who like to drink and drive, maybe we could get coffee in little styrofoam cups, hackneyed spiritual tracts, and maps, all at the same place, sort of one stop shopping? just sayin' J.O.M.
AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, an extra culty version of AA founded by Tom Powers. Its therapeutic community is the East Ridge Recovery Center (http://http://www.alladdictsanonymous.org/meetings_eastridge.htm), located in upstate New York. A number of Family Foundation School founders and/or key personnel originate from East Ridge, among them being Chris Stein, Tony Argiros, Betty Argiros, Rita Argiros, Mike Argiros, Robin Ducey, and Mike Ducey.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is exactly what I am talking about short sightedness, (AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, ("an extra culty version of AA") founded by Tom Powers) this has nothing to do with AA at it's core principles or with AA at all really. But because some school chose to adopt their version AA should be punished.
One other opinion I have, ya know there are other members that go to AA here I am not the only one, yet because of there silence and acquiesce which you like. I believe you then assume that this subject is off limits to talk about. Because when talked about it offends others. I understand that I just so happen to not be offended and I am explaining why.
Danny
:shamrock:
Could you possibly explain to us then, Danny, why you are a fan of the fb page Family Foundation School (http://http://www.facebook.com/TheFamilyFoundationSchool?sid=100000818550701) ("This is the official Facebook page of the Family Foundation School"), that is, a direct spinoff from that "extra culty version of AA" described above, and to which a great number of founders and/or key personnel of FFS owe their ideological roots?
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
...
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is exactly what I am talking about short sightedness, (AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, ("an extra culty version of AA") founded by Tom Powers) this has nothing to do with AA at it's core principles or with AA at all really. But because some school chose to adopt their version AA should be punished.
One other opinion I have, ya know there are other members that go to AA here I am not the only one, yet because of there silence and acquiesce which you like. I believe you then assume that this subject is off limits to talk about. Because when talked about it offends others. I understand that I just so happen to not be offended and I am explaining why.
Danny
:shamrock:
Here's what I don't understand: are you saying that AA is being blamed, and shouldn't be blamed, for Family Foundation School's "extra-cultishness," and that what goes on at FFS has nothing to do with AA's core principles or "with AA at all really?"
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
..
-
..
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is exactly what I am talking about short sightedness, (AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, ("an extra culty version of AA") founded by Tom Powers) this has nothing to do with AA at it's core principles or with AA at all really. But because some school chose to adopt their version AA should be punished.
One other opinion I have, ya know there are other members that go to AA here I am not the only one, yet because of there silence and acquiesce which you like. I believe you then assume that this subject is off limits to talk about. Because when talked about it offends others. I understand that I just so happen to not be offended and I am explaining why.
Danny
:shamrock:
Here's what I don't understand: are you saying that AA is being blamed, and shouldn't be blamed, for Family Foundation School's "extra-cultishness," and that what goes on at FFS has nothing to do with AA's core principles or "with AA at all really?"
:shamrock: :shamrock:
First, all of the above. Yes you got it now why was that so hard for everyone else.
Second, you asked me why I have FFS site on my facebook page because I want it. Just like I have the the FFS site that is exposing the atrocities happening with FFS because I want it. OK
Interesting reading.
Danny
Thanks for that clarification, Danny.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why you seem to be mining the Family Foundation School Newsletters for material to post on fornits? For example, your thread on chapstick addiction (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044) came directly from such a newsletter. I noticed that it was heavily edited (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044&p=358778#p358778) to remove the God, FFS, and AA references. And then, of course, no link was provided.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why it is you find so much to LIKE on the Wall of the FFS fb page? For example:
Family Foundation School "When I struggle, I sink. When I let go, I float."
February 12 at 2:25pm
Family Foundation School "If you can't take it, leave it. If you can't leave it, love it."
February 13 at 3:40am
Family Foundation School "When you think you are overdue for a miracle in your life try to remember that you are right in the middle of one."
February 17 at 5:47am[/list]
The one I personally really got a kick out of was this one:
Family Foundation School "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a…duck."
February 15 at 3:42pm[/list]
Is it possible that you actually do not at all consider the Family Foundation School to be an "extra-culty" devolution of AA? Could you perchance expound on this theme a bit more?
-
Ursus ,
I don't believe that the x assistant director realizes that we are not in elan anymore. That it is in the real world .
And as a surviviour of one of the most brutal and criminally insane , hellholes on the planet , I see a HUGE difference. You have to earn my respect , you don't demand it, and as for commanding respect , ignorance please.
The x assistant director doesn't have power anymore . It can't make good people do bad things to other good people anymore.
It seems so pround to be able to say that it was an x assistant director. Ignorance please.
-
When I see "FFS" all that runs through my head is "for fuck's sake".
:seg:
Ursus, you crack me the hell up! Good catch! :cheers:
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
...
-
Thanks for that clarification, Danny.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why you seem to be mining the Family Foundation School Newsletters for material to post on fornits? For example, your thread on chapstick addiction came directly from such a newsletter. I noticed that it was heavily edited to remove the God, FFS, and AA references. And then, of course, no link was provided.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why it is you find so much to LIKE on the Wall of the FFS fb page? For example:
Family Foundation School "When I struggle, I sink. When I let go, I float."
February 12 at 2:25pm
Family Foundation School "If you can't take it, leave it. If you can't leave it, love it."
February 13 at 3:40am
Family Foundation School "When you think you are overdue for a miracle in your life try to remember that you are right in the middle of one."
February 17 at 5:47am
The one I personally really got a kick out of was this one:
Family Foundation School "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a…duck."
February 15 at 3:42pm
Is it possible that you actually do not at all consider the Family Foundation School to be an "extra-culty" devolution of AA? Could you perchance expound on this theme a bit more?
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Who gives a shit but some little paranoid freak like you and your little trolls who salivate at your shallow attempt to be relevant. Ursus your a copy and paste man get the hell out of the investigating business.
Yes!!! I am a "quack" big time, I've been listening to "Don Imus" for 30 years.
So please when you come back with something worth commenting on I will. I'm sure during your mental masturbating sessions you have with your boys you could produce more product then this.
Your a joke, all the intellect one would suggest you have, this is all you have.
Fuck Off Junior....
Joel and Matt stop acting like two little sissies.....OK!!! It is very annoying.
Danny.....
:shamrock:
Angry, angry little man. Who still doesn't understand the quote feature. Really, it would make slogging through your butchering of the English language at least a little more palatable.
Yes, yes...we've all heard for years about how "irrelevant" we are. You can see proof of our "irrelevance" in ALA's devotion of an entire page in a failed attempt to rebut what we've been saying. You can see proof in that Whooter "STICCs" around after all these years. You can see proof in the lawsuits that Ginger has endured (which have never, AFAIK, actually made it to a courtroom before being thrown out). Yes, we hear you. Feel better now darlin'? (pats the poor widdle guy on the head).
Christ but you are pathetic.
-
Danny:
You are rude and have been rude repeatedly on this and other threads.
It appears that your only purpose here is as an apologist for AA.
Frankly, in my opinion you are actually an embarrassment to that organization.
As well, in my opinion, you are a drag on discussion and deserve to be banned, or at least restricted.
It seems that you have very little meaningful input to offer and have become redundant, to say the least.
If all you have to offer here is the same defenses and personal attacks over and over and over again, then perhaps you should move on.
Therefore, I call for Bennison to be banned outright by his IP, or else restricted somehow from making multiple insulting posts every day.
Let's put it to a vote of sorts. Is that, then, the consensus of everyone else on this thread?
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
This is exactly what I am talking about short sightedness, (AAA is also the acronym of All Addicts Anonymous, ("an extra culty version of AA") founded by Tom Powers) this has nothing to do with AA at it's core principles or with AA at all really. But because some school chose to adopt their version AA should be punished.
One other opinion I have, ya know there are other members that go to AA here I am not the only one, yet because of there silence and acquiesce which you like. I believe you then assume that this subject is off limits to talk about. Because when talked about it offends others. I understand that I just so happen to not be offended and I am explaining why.
Danny
:shamrock:
Here's what I don't understand: are you saying that AA is being blamed, and shouldn't be blamed, for Family Foundation School's "extra-cultishness," and that what goes on at FFS has nothing to do with AA's core principles or "with AA at all really?"
:shamrock: :shamrock:
First, all of the above. Yes you got it now why was that so hard for everyone else.
Second, you asked me why I have FFS site on my facebook page because I want it. Just like I have the the FFS site that is exposing the atrocities happening with FFS because I want it. OK
Interesting reading.
Danny
Thanks for that clarification, Danny.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why you seem to be mining the Family Foundation School Newsletters for material to post on fornits? For example, your thread on chapstick addiction (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044) came directly from such a newsletter. I noticed that it was heavily edited (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044&p=358778#p358778) to remove the God, FFS, and AA references. And then, of course, no link was provided.
Perhaps you'd also care to comment on why it is you find so much to LIKE on the Wall of the FFS fb page? For example:
Family Foundation School "When I struggle, I sink. When I let go, I float."
February 12 at 2:25pm
Family Foundation School "If you can't take it, leave it. If you can't leave it, love it."
February 13 at 3:40am
Family Foundation School "When you think you are overdue for a miracle in your life try to remember that you are right in the middle of one."
February 17 at 5:47am[/list]
The one I personally really got a kick out of was this one:
Family Foundation School "If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a…duck."
February 15 at 3:42pm[/list]
Is it possible that you actually do not at all consider the Family Foundation School to be an "extra-culty" devolution of AA? Could you perchance expound on this theme a bit more?
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Who gives a shit but some paranoid freak like you and your trolls who salivate at your shallow attempt to be relevant. Ursus your a copy and paste man get the hell out of the investigating business.
Yes!!! I am a "quack" big time, I've been listening to "Don Imus" for 30 years.
So please when you come back with something worth commenting on I will. I'm sure during your mental masturbating sessions you have with your boys you could produce more product then this.
Your a joke....lol. All the intellect one would suggest you have, this is all you have.
Keep trying my tennis player, Oh it was your turn to hit the ball back...did you forget.
Joel and Matt stop acting like two little sissies.....OK!!! It is very annoying.
Danny.....
:shamrock:
Well, lolly lol lol lol! ...Ya still haven't answered my question, my dear Danny Duck... Your ball never made it over the net! :D
-
Danny:
You are rude and have been rude repeatedly on this and other threads.
It appears that your only purpose here is as an apologist for AA.
Frankly, in my opinion you are actually an embarrassment to that organization.
As well, in my opinion, you are a drag on discussion and deserve to be banned, or at least restricted.
It seems that you have very little meaningful input to offer and have become redundant, to say the least.
If all you have to offer here is the same defenses and personal attacks over and over and over again, then perhaps you should move on.
Therefore, I call for Bennison to be banned outright by his IP, or else restricted somehow from making multiple insulting posts every day.
Let's put it to a vote of sorts. Is that, then, the consensus of everyone else on this thread?
What say you on the matter of a ban or restriction placed on DB, Ursus?
-
Danny:
You are rude and have been rude repeatedly on this and other threads.
It appears that your only purpose here is as an apologist for AA.
Frankly, in my opinion you are actually an embarrassment to that organization.
As well, in my opinion, you are a drag on discussion and deserve to be banned, or at least restricted.
It seems that you have very little meaningful input to offer and have become redundant, to say the least.
If all you have to offer here is the same defenses and personal attacks over and over and over again, then perhaps you should move on.
Therefore, I call for Bennison to be banned outright by his IP, or else restricted somehow from making multiple insulting posts every day.
Let's put it to a vote of sorts. Is that, then, the consensus of everyone else on this thread?
NOT BY THE HAIR ON MY CHINNY CHIN CHIN!!!
We're having way too much fun fishin' (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29840&p=358824#p358814) !! :D
-
Have fun. But what an annoying pain in the ass this guy is...
-
..
-
...
-
..
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
I was thinking about this post above and it occurred to me that I may not be a alcoholic after all. I am 50% Irish you saw some of the study done in relation to my Italian friends. The Irish are foul mannered when they drink. Well I may have drank more then my share...lol.
Seriously so many have studied the Alcoholic and produced results saying it is genetics, a lack of spirituality, disease and now social teaching.
Now this last one social importation. Hmmm I am not exactly sure if I understand this. I wonder if it has anything to do with what are children are being taught about drugs and alcohol today on a higher plane, subliminally by the actions happening around them. The troubled teen industry is filled with children/young adults with alcohol and drug abuse problems. I understand that this belies another latent problem yet before the real problem is addressed you can have alcoholism and addiction to drugs.
I don't know if I have been able to get my point across but I guess the long and short of it is this. What are we teaching are young Americans today about drugs and alcohol and is this affecting their growth.
Danny.......
:shamrock: :shamrock:
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
I was thinking about this post above and it occurred to me that I may not be a alcoholic after all I'm Irish and that explains it. At least 50% anyway the rest was imported.
Seriously so many have studied the Alcoholic and produced results saying it is genetics, a lack of spirituality, disease and now social teaching.
Now this last one social importation. Hmmm I am not exactly sure if I understand this. I wonder if it has anything to do with what are children are being taught about drugs and alcohol today on a higher plane, subliminally by the actions happening around them. The troubled teen industry is filled with children/young adults with alcohol and drug abuse problems. I understand that this belies another latent problem yet before the real problem is addressed you can have alcoholism and addiction to drugs.
I don't know if I have been able to get my point across but I guess the long and short of it is this. What are we teaching are young Americans today about drugs and alcohol and is this affecting their growth.
Danny.......
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Liza... you really should get your own username! ;D
Another thread you might be interested in, with anthropological speculation similar to that of the article you posted just previously (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29996&p=358880#p358876):
The Americanization of Mental Illness
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=29903 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=29903)[/list]
-
Edited: Wednesday, October 06, 2010
-
I never heard about Liza before. What does she do?
“Liza” is Danny's schizotypal symptom or (if you take his word for it) some woman out there in the world has nothing and no one better to do than Danny and she chimes in once in a while. OH yes Ursus, "I do scale back Danny's comments some of them are unnecessary." BTW my name is Liza. I for one do enjoy your posting, thank you.
Well, Hellooo Liza! Won't you take on a registered username? That way some of us may have an easier time deciphering what comes out of Danny's mind, from what comes out of yours! Besides, Danny really needs another voice on here backing him up. He's getting creamed! • :D
-
:shamrock: :shamrock:
I was thinking about this post above and it occurred to me that I may not be a alcoholic after all I'm Irish and that explains it. At least 50% anyway the rest was imported.
Seriously so many have studied the Alcoholic and produced results saying it is genetics, a lack of spirituality, disease and now social teaching.
Now this last one social importation. Hmmm I am not exactly sure if I understand this. I wonder if it has anything to do with what are children are being taught about drugs and alcohol today on a higher plane, subliminally by the actions happening around them. The troubled teen industry is filled with children/young adults with alcohol and drug abuse problems. I understand that this belies another latent problem yet before the real problem is addressed you can have alcoholism and addiction to drugs.
I don't know if I have been able to get my point across but I guess the long and short of it is this. What are we teaching are young Americans today about drugs and alcohol and is this affecting their growth.
Danny.......
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Wow. For the first time I agree with much (though not all) of what you're saying. It doesn't mean you should go out and drink, though. If you have a drinking problem it's probably better to be safe than sorry and abstain completely. Once you pick up a habit, it's hard to undo. Once you pick up certain beliefs, such as powerlessness, it's hard to "un-believe". It can be done, as Moderation Management and Stanton Peele argue, but it's difficult. The fact is that you don't need alcohol to live. If you've had problems with drinking in the past, it's just common sense that you should avoid it, especially if your prior attempts to moderate have failed.
Here's another excerpt about genetics (http://http://www.peele.net/lib/diseasing3.html) you might enjoy:
The Genetics of Alcoholism
AA originally claimed that alcoholics inherit an "allergy" to alcohol that underlies their loss of control when they drink. Today this particular idea has been discarded. Nonetheless, a tremendous investment has been made in the search for biological inheritances that may cause alcoholism, while many grandiose claims have been made about the fruits of this search. In 1987, almost two-thirds of Americans (63 percent) agreed that "alcoholism can be hereditary"; only five years earlier, in 1982, more people had disagreed (50 percent) than agreed (40 percent) with this statement. Furthermore, it is the better educated who agree most with this statement.15 Yet widely promulgated and broadly accepted claims about the inheritance of alcoholism are inaccurate, and important data from genetic research call into doubt the significance of genetic influences on alcoholism and problem drinking. Moreover, prominent genetic researchers themselves indicate that cultural and environmental influences are the major determinants of most drinking problems, even for the minority of alcoholics who they believe have a genetic component to their drinking.
Popular works now regularly put forward the theory — presented as fact — that the inherited cause of alcoholism has been discovered. In the words of Durk Pearson and Sandra Shaw, the authors of Life Extension, "Alcohol addiction is not due to weak will or moral depravity; it is a genetic metabolic defect... [just like the] genetic metabolic defect resulting in gout." One version of this argument appeared in the newsletter of the Alcoholism Council of Greater New York:
Someone like the derelict. . . , intent only on getting sufficient booze from the bottle poised upside-down on his lips. . . [is] the victim of metabolism, a metabolism the derelict is born with, a metabolic disorder that causes excessive drinking.16
Is it really possible that street inebriates are destined from the womb to become alcoholics? Don't they really have a choice in the matter, or any alternatives? Don't their upbringings, or their personal and social values, have any impact on this behavior?
Several well-publicized studies have found that close biological relatives of alcoholics are more likely to be alcoholics themselves. The best-known research of this kind, examining Danish adoptees, was published in the early 1970s by psychiatrist Donald Goodwin and his colleagues. The researchers found that male adoptees with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics three to four times more often than adoptees without alcoholic relatives. This research has several surprising elements to it, however. In the first place, only 18 percent of the males with alcoholic biological parents became alcoholics themselves (compared with 5 percent of those without alcoholic parentage). Note that, accepting this study at face value, the vast majority of men whose fathers are alcoholics do not become alcoholic solely because of biological inheritance.17
Some might argue that Goodwin's definition of alcoholism is too narrow and that the figures in his research severely understate the incidence of alcoholism. Indeed, there was an additional group of problem drinkers whom Goodwin and his colleagues identified, and many people might find it hard to distinguish when a drinker fell in this rather than in the alcoholic group. However, more of the people in the problem drinking group did not have alcoholic parents than did! If alcoholic and heavy problem drinkers are combined, as a group they are not more likely to be offspring of alcoholic than of nonalcoholic parents, and the finding of inherited differences in alcoholism rates disappears from this seminal study. One last noteworthy result of the Goodwin team's research: in a separate study using the same methodology as the male offspring study, the investigators did not find that daughters of alcoholic parents more often became alcoholic themselves (in fact, there were more alcoholic women in the group without alcoholic parents).18
Other studies also discourage global conclusions about inheritance of alcoholism. One is by a highly respected research group in Britain under Robin Murray, dean of the Institute of Psychiatry at Maudsley Hospital. Murray and his colleagues compared the correlation between alcoholism in identical twins with that between fraternal twins. Since the identical pair are more similar genetically, they should more often be alcoholic or nonalcoholic together than twins whose relationships are genetically equivalent to ordinary siblings. No such difference appeared. Murray and his colleagues and others have surveyed the research on inheritance of alcoholism.19 According to a longtime biological researcher in alcoholism, David Lester, these reviews "suggest that genetic involvement in the etiology of alcoholism. . . is weak at best." His own review of the literature, Lester wrote, "extends and. . . strengthens these previous judgments." Why, then, are genetic viewpoints so popular? For Lester, the credibility given genetic views is "disproportionate with their theoretical and empirical warrant," and the "attraction and persistence of such views lies in their conformity with ideological norms."
Several studies of male children of alcoholics (including two ongoing Danish investigations) have not found that these children drink differently as young adults or adolescents from their cohorts without alcoholic relatives.20 These children of alcoholics are not generally separated from their parents, and we know that for whatever reason, male children brought up by their alcoholic parents more often will be alcoholic themselves. What this tells us is that these children aren't born as alcoholics but develop their alcoholism over the years. In the words of George Vaillant, who followed the drinking careers of a large group of men over forty years:
The present prospective study offers no credence to the common belief that some individuals become alcoholics after the first drink. The progression from alcohol use to abuse takes years.21
What, then, do people inherit that keeps them drinking until they become alcoholics? Milam asserts in Under the Influence that the source of alcoholism is acetaldehyde, a chemical produced when the body breaks down alcohol. Some research has found higher levels of this chemical in children of alcoholics when they drink22; other research (like the two Danish prospective studies) has not. Such discrepancies in research results also hold for abnormalities in brain waves that various teams of researchers have identified in children of alcoholics — some find one EEG pattern, while other researchers discover a distinct but different pattern.23 Psychiatrist Mare Schuckit, of the University of California at San Diego Medical School, found no such differences between young men from alcoholic families and a matched comparison group, leading him to "call into question. . . the replicability and generalizability" of cognitive impairments and neuropsychologic deficits "as part of a predisposition toward alcoholism."24
Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger (along with several other researchers) claims that an inherited antisocial or crime-prone personality often leads to both criminality and alcoholism in men.25 On the other hand, antisocial acting out when drinking, as well as criminality, are endemic to certain social and racial groups — particularly young working-class and ghetto males.26 The Cloninger view gets into the slippery realm of explaining that the underprivileged and ghettoized are born the way they are. In addition, Schuckit has failed to find any differences in antisocial temperament or impulsiveness to differentiate those who come from alcoholic families and those without alcoholic siblings or parents.27 Instead, Schuckit believes, one — perhaps the — major mechanism that characterizes children of alcoholics is that these children are born with a diminished sensitivity to the effects of alcohol28 (although — once again — other researchers do not find this to be the case29).
In Schuckit's view, children of alcoholics have a built-in tolerance for alcohol — they experience less intoxication than other people when drinking the same amounts. (Note that this is the opposite of the original AA view that alcoholics inherit an allergy to alcohol.) In the Schuckit model, alcoholics might unwittingly drink more over long periods and thus build up a dependence on alcohol. But as a theory of alcoholism, where does this leave us? Why do these young men continue drinking for the years and decades Vaillant tells us it takes them to become alcoholics? And even if they can drink more without experiencing physical effects, why do they tolerate the various drinking problems, health difficulties, family complaints, and so on that occur on the road to alcoholism? Why don't they simply recognize the negative impact alcohol is having on their lives and resolve to drink less? Certainly, some people do exactly this, saying things like "I limit myself to one or two drinks because I don't like the way I act after I drink more."
One insight into how those with similar physiological responses to alcohol may have wholly different predispositions to alcoholism is provided by those who manifest "Oriental flush" — a heightened response to alcohol marked by a visible reddening after drinking that frequently characterizes Asians and Native Americans. Oriental flush has a biochemical basis in that Asian groups display higher acetaldehyde levels when they drink: here, many believe, is a key to alcoholism. But individuals from Asian backgrounds who flush do not necessarily drink more than — or differ in their susceptibility to drinking problems from — those who don't flush.30 Moreover, groups that show flushing have both the highest alcoholism rates (Native Americans and Eskimos) and the lowest rates (Chinese and Japanese) among ethnic groups in the United States. What distinguishes between how people in these two groups react to the same biological phenomenon? It would certainly seem that Eskimos' and Indians' abnegated state in America and their isolation from the American economic and achievement-oriented system inflate their alcoholism rates, while the low alcoholism rates of the Chinese and Japanese must be related to their achievement orientation and economic success in our society.
Not even genetically oriented researchers (as opposed to popularizers) deny that cultural and social factors are crucial in the development of alcoholism and that, in this sense, alcoholism is driven by values and life choices. Consider three quotes from prominent medical researchers. Mare Schuckit: "It is unlikely that there is a single cause for alcoholism. . . . At best, biologic factors explain only a part of " the alcoholism problem31; George Vaillant: "I think it [finding a biological marker for alcoholism] would be as unlikely as finding one for basketball playing. . . . The high number of children of alcoholics who become addicted, Vaillant believes, is due less to biological factors than to poor role models"32; Robert Cloninger: "The demonstration of the critical importance of sociocultural influences in most alcoholics suggests that major changes in social attitudes about drinking styles can change dramatically the prevalence of alcohol abuse regardless of genetic predisposition."33 In short, the idea that alcoholism is an inherited biological disease has been badly overstated, and according to some well-informed observers, is completely unfounded.
-
..
-
...
-
Please, I beg of you....do NOT simply copy/paste entire sections of the BB. We've all read it. If you have something to say about a specific part, quote that part and make your point. But to simply copy/paste whole sections with no thoughts of your own is just pushing AA propaganda.
-
...
-
I never heard about Liza before. What does she do?
"Liza" is Danny's schizotypal symptom or (if you take his word for it) some woman out there in the world has nothing and no one better to do than Danny and she chimes in once in a while.
OH yes Ursus, "I do scale back Danny's comments some of them are unnecessary." BTW my name is Liza. I for one do enjoy your posting, thank you.
Well, Hellooo Liza! Won't you take on a registered username? That way some of us may have an easier time deciphering what comes out of Danny's mind, from what comes out of yours! Besides, Danny really needs another voice on here backing him up. He's getting creamed! · :D
For context, original source for thread quest quoted from: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044&p=358848#p358848 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30044&p=358848#p358848)
-
Anne,
I am not pushing propaganda for AA. I thought that I had made my position on AA clear. I am not a rabid member nor someone that wholesale agrees with all of the principles.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhhht.
DannyB II wrote:
Matty be careful I visit your hometown with about 250 other AA men for a conference every May look it up. I should be seeing you in May. We just may corral you and before you know it you be brainwashed.
-
Anne,
It seems that the x assistant director just is incapable of getting honest . It twists and turns and doesn't seem to realize that what it has done is in black and white ( actually what, an off white color) .
Oh I percieved that statement as a threat and I posted accordingly . I have been threatened before in the program that the x assistant director (supposedly) worked for elan .
Marty Kruglik handed a baseball bat to two people guarding me and blasting me on my shotdown in the summer of 75.
And what the x assistant directors buddy (face book friends list) Kruglik said to those 2 people that "if I even gave them a hint , the slightest hint , that they were to beat me to death on the spot "
I lived with that baseball bat and people guarding for over 2 months night and day knowing that I could be beaten to death at any given moment. yes I lived in sheer fear of my life.The base ball bat was taken away 2 months into my shotdown of 3 months.
The x assistant director post threats and then denies that they are threats. I am sorry I do not understand . the x assistant director assumes way to much about me to the point that it really makes him look like the complete idiot that he is .
You know I love the Grateful Dead , I think they were the most wonderful band of all time ,I went to a lot of meetings (sorry shows ) . I know that there are a lot of people that don't like the dead . Hey thats fine I am not going to jam Grateful Dead crap down peoples throats and call them all losers because they don't succomb to the way I think about the GRAteful DEad .
This is exactly what you do with this crap about AA. no one wants to hear it and they have been politely trying to tell you about 2 weeks ago.
I don't threaten people never have and I never will . But I did sell the x assistant director a ticket , that I will gladly cash . That was if he comes anywhere near me I will call the police and hopefully he will start the process of healing from his inpolite way of behaving on a discussion board in prison, and treatening a true suvivour.
If the x assistant director was really that an x assistant director ,which I am beginning to doubt , I would suggest that he post relevant material (things that it witnessed at elan ) that will help shut down elan and expose it for what elan was and not proselytize AA.
After all I am here to shut down elan and not get people to view the Grateful dead as how I do. I am a really big fan of the Grateful DEAD. And I don't think many folks think I try to convert them to my way of thinking about the DEAD. IT is simply ABSURD.
I don't think that the x assistant director is truly capeable of doing that , but that is my own opinion.
bennison take your stupid whacked apology and place thumb and four fingers on chest and rub vigorously .
Catch my drift .
-
It seems as If we have ran away with this subject a bit, so I'll keep my answers simple, but of course, if you'd like to continue debate on the subject of the program maybe we should move it to another thread...
I wish you could step back a little further and see both sides of the issue. Maybe I am guilty also, but I strive to see the good and bad in the industry. I am not so sure you make the same sincere effort.
I do feel I have an understanding for both sides, in fact, I'll be the first one to tell you that resources to legitimately help struggling families are a valuable asset to our society, however my issue is not with all programs, as I have mentioned before I do not deny the existence of a program that does not abuse kids and con families. My focus is on, and this I know I have been clear about, the specific methods that are employed by various programs that are either illegal, unethical, psychologically damaging or all of the above. I can't possibly scan every program out there and give a pass or failing grade so I make a point to be specific about my issues with the TTI, none of which are that all people who say they were helped were scammed. However I do believe, and this being based on personal experience that the seminars and some of the marketing techniques employed by many programs in this industry have the power to mislead some people into blindly believing that they are receiving a legitimate service especially when this is a bold faced lie... But you need to consider one more side to that coin, you can only be conned if your ignorant enough to fall for it... regardless of the tide against us, most of us can see the truth when its staring us in the face, The fact that people can be conned by these places really isn't the biggest problem we face here, as I mentioned before, our biggest challenge reaching program supporters is their lack of empathy and abundance of ignorance.
Femanon. You are only looking at one side of the issue. Have you considered that maybe the parents and siblings were wronged? Do really you think that in every case ? That the family wasn’t hurt also?
sure, you would have to assume as much... I never made any mention to the contrary.
We need to accept and keep our minds open to everyone’s experience, whether we agree with it or not. To close our minds to other people and hide behind comments like “They must be brain washed” or conned is doing a disservice to themselves and will limit their ability to work towards a solution which will benefit everyone.
I wouldn't have a closed mind to anyone's story if they were gracious enough to share it with me, and point by point I may agree or disagree, but I would never tell someone they were lying about their experience. The ol "brainwashed" adage just refers to the opinion that these places are much like cults in the first place and those who religiously defend it, and attempt to ignore and refute substantial evidence with cult-speak like "the program saved my kid's life", in my opinion, it's simply a logical conclusion.
Like you mentioned we both know that fornits doesn’t represent everyone who attended a program. People are helped by programs and hurt by programs. AA is effective with some people and others find a different path. It's not black and white. We shouldn’t force everyone to attend a program or AA and on the flip side we shouldn’t shut down every program or pass a law making attending AA a crime.
I don't think every program should be shut down, however I do believe, in order for these programs to remain in existence they need to apply rigorous standards and do away with the current "tough love" model and methods. I have no problem with a program, or recovery center offering therapy, support and teaching life skills... In fact I wish that there were more resources like this available for everyone... but I believe there is such a stark difference between a legitimate recovery center and a TTI program and those differences are the reason I oppose these kinds of programs.
I feel the same way about AA... I have no problem with the initial principal of AA, as far as a network of support groups, and generally I agree with the notion that those who feel genuinely afflicted by their compulsions should be able to find a way to halt their destructive behaviors... However there are more than a few reasons AA crosses that line into "cult-like" and those are the reasons I am forced to reject AA as a legitimate organization.
like you said, nothing is black and white, and there is both good and bad, but consider this... if we were to be giving pass or failing grades here I'd have to assume that more than 50% of what goes down in these places needs to be changed... and I don't know how long it's been since you were in school but less than 50% is a FAIL. Sending your kid to a program with those odds, is not a bet any parent should take with the future of their child. Despite all of the information available and even considering the indecent track record of the industry and such a massive discrepancy between those who approve and oppose many parents still take that gamble and although I can understand the motivating factors behind such a decision, I fail to understand the logic that a parent would be willing to put their child in danger and just hope against all hope that they don't end up on our side of the fence...
-
DANNY,
I was hoping I may be able to get a response from you on a few points I made...
quoted for your convenience.
Hmm... well Danny, although my intent was not to sabotage your belief system... I must admit I find it hard to relate. Not to the need for common understanding, in fact I encourage a group therapy environment, and certainly not the need for a basic life principals. What I have a hard time understanding is why a doctrine that encourages you to believe you are powerless has any positive effect on your willpower to stay sober. In fact, I'm almost positive that way of thinking greatly contributes to the failure of so many addicts that have attended these meetings.
I guess it doesn't help that I am also not a fan of organized religion and can really only view AA/NA as a modern day attempt at religious conquest. I find the idea that the only thing that can keep a man sober is some imaginary being quite disturbing and frankly illogical when the man is the only one who can choose to drink the booze.
That surely doesn't mean I hate anyone, and I don't think you are all idiots. My crass language is only descriptive of my utter bewilderment of such a concept.
As well, I wasn't inferring that I don't have my own "addictions" but I do not claim to be diseased, from what I understand, those are called "impulses" and they are things I can learn to control with will power and intent. I would find it very difficult to ever expect to look outside myself for control over my own emotions and surely not my decision making.
I've seen many different sides of what has been labeled by AA to be the "disease concept", I've seen many people self medicate due to pre-existing disorders, a few with legitimate addictive personalities and believe it or not I've met several people who just crave the "druggie" lifestyle... does this mean they are all diseased? I think there needs to be further study into this concept, considering addiction was only categorized as a disease so that it could be treatable instead of punishable, I think AA kind of ran away with that one trying to give creditability to the whole "powerless" pretense.
Call me an idealist but wouldn't it just make sense to apply some good ol fashioned analytical psychology to the treatment of addiction? Why does it always have to be one size fits all? I would picture someone with a bonafide addictive disorder to be in great need of some in depth personal therapy, not just a meeting to listen to other people bitch about how they fucked up their lives. Because for people like this, just abstaining from their drug of choice is NOT going to "save their lives", it takes a total life change.
:seg: :seg: :seg: :seg: :seg: :seg: :seg: :seg: :seg:
-
...
-
Matt would you shut the fuck up already, you made your point already now. Everybody is with ya buddy.
Your 15 mins. though is almost over.
Danny
Hey Danny, my fifteen minutes with your mama is just about to begin. Here's hoping that I get my ten bucks' worth out of her.
-
...
-
Whew! Danny, I got my ten bucks' worth (and then some) out of your mama, that's for sure. Now she and I are gonna relax; we'll have a drink and do a J.
-
..
-
Danny: we never heard of "Chick Tracy" before, but earlier your mama went "Dick Crazy."
-
Why thank you, I appreciate your honesty and the time you took to answer my questions. but honestly it would really help a lot if you would be willing to utilize the quote feature... if you need some guidance as to how to do so feel free to pm me or hell even start a new thread...
What I have a hard time understanding is why a doctrine that encourages you to believe you are powerless has any positive effect on your willpower to stay sober. In fact, I'm almost positive that way of thinking greatly contributes to the failure of so many addicts that have attended these meetings.
The only time powerless comes into play for me is when I take that first drink then I don't know what's going to happen next. When I am under the influence of Alcohol I am powerless. That is my interpretation. Otherwise I have power lots of it, the power to make choices ect....
okay, I can dig that, I think many of us have experienced something along those lines... but in my studies and participation in AA/NA there was a bit more to this notion, it really ties into the whole disease concept which serves to both summon a lack of self belief and deflect personal responsibility. How many people in AA/NA tell their stories and refer to themselves as a monster when under the influence? well I hate to break it to you but alcohol doesn't have the power to turn good people into monsters, that side of you is part of who you are and your choices under the influences are still very much your choices. You can't claim to have a disease and be excused for those actions, just the same as you can't murder someone and find Jesus and be forgiven... I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but you can't change the past and making excuses for it isn't going to make it okay. If anyone came up to me and told me it was part of their program to make amends to me I would tell them that forgiveness is earned, not asked for.
I guess it doesn't help that I am also not a fan of organized religion and can really only view AA/NA as a modern day attempt at religious conquest. I find the idea that the only thing that can keep a man sober is some imaginary being quite disturbing and frankly illogical when the man is the only one who can choose to drink the booze.
Naa then you haven't been to a lot of meeting most of us cannot stand organized religion, I personally am nondenominational, I more believe a spirit that the native Indians believe then I do anything else. Believing in something greater then myself or yourself is as old as the universe. It is very simple for me Femanon, When a man is in the grips of Alcoholism or hard core drug dependency it is going to take a lot more than making a decision to help you come through. Doctors, nurses, counselors, Hospital care, detox and medication maybe. Well all of that is more powerful then you. Because if you're sick, "the sick cannot get the sick healthy". I've tried. So there is so much in this life of ours that is more powerful than me so therefore I am powerless over it. Not a illogical, disturbing, frightening or imaginary belief.
Well I agree that an addict needs and should reach out for outside help and support, but what does god have to do with it? Forgive my "extreme beliefs" but isn't god just like Santa Claus for grownups? and why do you have to have the threat of hell in your heart to be a good person? isn't just being a good person, enjoying your life, friends and family a good enough reason to stay on a healthy path in life. Now I know you say you are nondenominational, and I know they word it as "higher power" in order to include those of you who are not particularly religious, but you must realize that AA is an organized religion in and of itself. It originated as a work pertaining to Christian faith and it has been modified over the years to be able to include people like you in hopes that you may be vulnerable enough to convert. I've seen it myself, good friend of mine actually... had the same conversation with her and she even admitted she had no intention of becoming Christian or going to church before she got involved with AA/NA... that's how they getcha... AA or death = Jesus or hell
... I wasn't inferring that I don't have my own "addictions" but I do not claim to be diseased, from what I understand, those are called "impulses" and they are things I can learn to control with will power and intent. I would find it very difficult to ever expect to look outside myself for control over my own emotions and surely not my decision making.
No I don't buy into that either the disease explanation. Whoa Femonon you have to understand that my explanations will always be based on, "while I am under the influence of alcohol". I don't have any will power, sense of morality, control of intent. Alcohol is a drug I think everyone forgets that sometimes. Which I believe effects us all differently, in my case most disturbing. While your drunk I don't think you should be looking outside yourself you might throw up on your buddy...lol.
So it seems what your telling me is that AA has a take it or leave it policy with the 12 steps?... The problem with the powerlessness belief be it under the influence or because you are supposedly an alcoholic for life, is that it sets a state of mind that you are not in control of your life... although I have to agree with you that many things in this world are simply not within our reach to control, I must disagree that one is not in control of their impulses, under the influence or not, your choices are still your choices. One cannot lose their morality due to the ingestion of a substance, one may lose their will power, but that too is still under your control. This notion that you are powerless or lacking in control is really quite defeatist and in my opinion detrimental. In my opinion the addicted persons should be indoctrined with a mantra of self regulation, complete responsibility for ones actions and the fortunate truth that we all have what it takes to make our lives better... Addicts for the most part of their lives have felt powerless, what is the point in reinforcing those slippery self destructive beliefs when you should be empowering each other, and learning to trust and believe in yourself.
.... a few with legitimate addictive personalities and believe it or not I've met several people who just crave the "druggie" lifestyle... does this mean they are all diseased?
I won't agree with you that anybody in their right mind enjoys the "druggie lifestyle". They are on the druggie maintenance program...lol. If you know what I mean.
well, this might just be a disconnection between our generation because there are PLENTY of people my age who LOVE the party scene, and the lifestyle that comes with drugs and drinking... It becomes a big part of their personality, and that in and of itself prevents them from wanting to get sober.
... I would picture someone with a bonafide addictive disorder to be in great need of some in depth personal therapy, not just a meeting to listen to other people bitch about how they fucked up their lives. Because for people like this, just abstaining from their drug of choice is NOT going to "save their lives", it takes a total life change.
...Now Now we are not sitting around bitching and if you are, shame on you. You are right everything has to change; Persons, Places and things if you want to get off drugs and alcohol.
LOL then what ARE you doing in AA? Because I've been to my fair share of meetings, and that is EXACTLY what those people are doing. It's quite annoying if you ask me... As if they have nothing better to do with their lives than to wallow in their old druggie stories and complain about their constant craving. I honestly feel like most of these people should be seeing a therapist because the atmosphere of the meetings is only keeping them in their shit. I feel it is much more healthy to just seek help, learn some tools and move on, don't keep coming back telling the same ol cautionary tale... as much as you may think it's helping other people to see how bad it got for you it's damaging to your psyche to be reliving those memories every time you speak out at a meeting. I don't have a problem with those who have found success going back to support those who need help, but I think drug therapy should be focused on learning and teaching coping skills not divulging your deepest darkest secrets to a room full of strangers. That to me just screams catholic confession... go ahead do 3 hail marys, it won't mean shit but hell you'll feel better right?
-
(http://http://whore-nun.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/whore-nun-suicide-girl-nun-sleaze.jpg)
If I had to go to a catholic confession the above statement would be far to loquacious for my tastes.
The nun however, yeeeeeeeaaaah baby.
-
Danny's mother let me take some nekkid pictures of her this afternoon. Want to see those, too?
-
...
-
Hey Danny: your mom and I smoked some crack together a little while ago, and after we ran out of crack I let her freebase my scrotum.
-
..
-
Danny can I play with my wanker at your AA meeting tonight?
-
Re: Elan 6, 78-80
Postby dannyb50 on Fri Oct 16, 2009 4:10 pm
I was around till 9/78 at that time I worked for Elan at Elan 7 right behind Elan 3 if you were looking towards the lake on the left, used to be the dorm I slept in when I first arrived at Elan 3 in 6/75. I subsequently went on to Elan 5. I also worked in Parsonfield back when Peter McCann was director, it was Rick Rosenhaus, Larry Smaller, Peter and myself. When did these riots happen? I was the Ass. Director of Elan 7 and as I said I was a resident for 18 mons. Rich maybe I know you I really can't remember 31 yrs ago. Anyway glad I found this site nice chatting. OH, By the way Alice Dunn was the best I was her staff member p/t at Elan 3. She busted her butt to get where she was going, that's just my opinon from someone who was there when she started her adventure at Elan.
-
Harry, can you please post a link to that?
-
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30075 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=30075)
-
..
-
2nd reply......I have said from the beginning I believe in the spirit as to what one wants to believe, hell I don't care. We have 7 billion peeps on this earth, more believe in a God of some sort then don't. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus...ect. they all believe are we going to include them also in your thinking. Hey if they are not being hurt and are not hurting others then to me it is 6 /1/2 a dozen or the other.
AA is not manipulating anyone into believing anything of the sort trust me.
Now that's just not true at all. I've been to plenty of meetings and the vast majority will tell you that it's ok to not believe, but that's not the reality. Sometimes the process is slower and more subtle, but the indoctrination is definitely there. Hell, even the courts have ruled that it's pretty much just another religion in and of itself.
Hang around long enough here you will be singing another tune. People change and in AA those whiners after a while they stop and life gets better. So there is nothing to complain about.
Keep coming back, it works if you work it. Right??? Don't leave before the miracle happens. Right???
-
If you put that chip in your mouth and it melts, then you are allowed to have a drink!
-
Demand a chip made of ice and help it melt with a jigger of scotch.
-
...
-
Shut up.
-
..
-
Anne I don't know who you are talking to but what I am saying is the right on, seems you are very sensitive do to your indoctrination at Straight.
Gee, ya think? ::)
Anne what do you say to the Atheist who gets sober
Congratulations. Why? What do you say?
we have many many, agnostics which is me, what do you say to me....I'm screwed....lol. Oh I wasn't aware that I needed a judge to tell me my business about religion.
I was simply stating that the courts have ruled that it is a religion. For AA to try to keep implying that they're not religious is extremely disingenuous.
DannyB II wrote:Hang around long enough here you will be singing another tune. People change and in AA those whiners after a while they stop and life gets better. So there is nothing to complain about.
Anne responding.....
Keep coming back, it works if you work it. Right??? Don't leave before the miracle happens. Right???
Danny 2nd response.....
Anne why are you using this sly gimmickry with me. I don't even say those things I talk like normal folks. Your perception is so outdated or whatever. I sometimes don't even know what your talking about, really.
It's just like you telling people to "hang around long enough here" is pretty much like the 'keep coming back/wait for the miracle'. You guys are implying that if we just stick around, if we'd just open up we'd see the light. Keep coming back.
Postby Che Gookin » Today, 11:22
Demand a chip made of ice and help it melt with a jigger of scotch.
Image
Imma fuckin' sekrit Agent Man!!!
Danny response.......
Now Che that's not very nice I am a alcoholic, please use some restraint please...lol.
Restrain yourself! This is the big, bad real world where you are responsible for your own actions, not an AA room.
-
Shut up.
:shamrock: :shamrock:
Frauderick why don't you take yourself back to the Straight Site and figure out what happened
to you with your Stepcraft before telling me to shut up. Then come back here and try to have a
responsible conversation.
Danny
What, what happened to me with my stepcraft? My request for you to desist doing your part in this ceaseless barrage of gibberish has nothing to do with that. I get the feeling people are over this whole discussion.
-
...
-
Feel free to continue with it (this is also directed at anyone here who qualifies as dedicated to keeping this worthless AA debate going), see if I care. Have fun, I'd rather be drinking.... :rofl:
-
..
-
...
-
Anne,
You seem to know alot about this program he went through, but don't ya think you were a little rough on his career choice and his consciousness right now. Can we not bring folks around with a smaller bat. He just joined the site that day.
Here is his post and yours. I also posted this because here is another 7 step AA (StepCraft) program that got shut down due to violence. VIOLENCE BEING THE KEY WORD HERE. I'VE LEARNED ALOT ABOUT VIOLENCE THESE PAST WEEKS.
Danny
Why are you posting that in this thread and not in the one the post originated? And quit trying to moderate this place. You're always telling people to move this post here, and that post there. As I tell my dog when she's picking up something she shouldn't, leave it!
-
He is trying to follow in the footsteps of his ELAN friend Mark Babitz. They are really a weird bunch of AA pushing cult leaders that stay in contact with their abusive supervisors from ELAN.
-
He is trying to follow in the footsteps of his ELAN friend Mark Babitz. They are really a weird bunch of AA pushing cult leaders that stay in contact with their abusive supervisors from ELAN.
:fuckoff: :fuckoff: Hey stupid I know its you.did you forget the site always shows the member date and you are surprisingly new. I think I have once again I have found He Whom We Dont Speak Of, As I have mentioned Trolls are fun just watch this, Hey ass-hole I was never in AA, I didnt drink until I was 25 or so and then didnt last long, My parents were Alcoholics so they drank enough for everyone, I smoked bails of pot but never hard drugs, Tried coke but dint like it and pills I never liked, I dont like taking aspirin,So those things weren't my vises. I was and am an adrenalin nut. I like risk and challenge, as if people cant see that,I became very educated academically and socially, So when I enter into a room I fear nothing but God himself,Be it a fight physically or veritably I do win . I also pick my battles, and most folks aren't smart enough too do that, We are all out matched by someone, the key is knowing who that is immediately. Trolls are the hardest ones to teach because they aren't very smart or think on their feet. They just walk up and start talking, generally out of their ass, and wont leave. If Danny want to talk about his views on AA so what. If anyone thinks he talks out of his ass so what, I see people are worried about him wanting control, well dummy's he has it. When He Whom We Dont Speak Of came around he was shunned and then removed. If all of you condemners felt so strong about him being mis-guided wouldn't it be the positive group thing to embrace him and help him think differently or at lease hear his view in a civil manner. I dont know shit about A.A,I have heard the 12 steps and the serenity prayer, and the prayer is used in allot of treatment formats,[ Except the thing I cant change and the wisdom to know the differences] etc, Hey folks that the rules of life not just A.A.Recall I said pick your fight in life, and know when to charge and when to back off ?? Same thing different words.You only take losses in life when you go after some thing you were never going to get, and ether by being to hard headed or too stupid too know the difference. A mistake is only a mistake when you dont learn some thing from it.Then you lead into insanity,the repetitious behavior. But as far as A.A. I have no opinion, It seems to work for some and not others I would guess it all what you give to it and yourself, like anything else in life. I have had friends in A.A.and Narcotics Anonymous. but thats about my knowledge of it. Some say its habit some say its a disease I dont know, Its been said to be hereditary. Who knows and who cares as long as the person isn't drinking or whatever and is staying alive, alls well .Who cares if their sobriety comes from talking to a tree, if thats their higher power and it works God bless. Being close minded and too stern also does damage to yourself.Because you just might mis something good in all the dribble,. You might only get 5 pounds out of 50 pound bag,but there is use. So be open minded and support your Trolls. :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :rocker: :rocker:
-
Hey ass-hole I was never in AA, I didnt drink until I was 25 or so and then didnt last long, My parents were Alcoholics so they drank enough for everyone, I smoked bails of pot but never hard drugs, Tried coke but dint like it and pills I never liked,
We pissed off Mark and struck a nerve :rocker: Mark you are still on hard drugs like most ELAN fags are. Keep working hard at your AA/NA/warcraft meetings!
-
I like risk and challenge, as if people cant see that,I became very educated academically and socially,
More like socially and academically challenged Mark. We can tell because of your diluted thinking when you write. :rocker:
-
Trolls are the hardest ones to teach because they aren't very smart or think on their feet. They just walk up and start talking, generally out of their ass, and wont leave.
Correction: ELAN trolls are the hardest brainwashed cult members to teach because they are three cards short of a full deck. :rocker:
-
Right down the shitter.
-
..
-
Anne just answer the question. Then stop beating up new guys. You have a male complex?????
Since when do you tell me what to do. I already have somebody doing that...lol
Danny
I'm not telling you what to do. It's called threadjacking you moron. Are you new to discussion boards?
Threadjack
To take over the content of a message thread by changing the subject of discourse to a topic outside the purview of the original subject and/orforum, while maintaining the subject line. A form of amusement for trolls.
-
*****
-
*****
-
2nd reply......Femanon you don't belong there so it will sound that way, it's like Country Music some folks here, "she left me boo hoo hooo" I here beautiful melodies and strings the older the better. Conway Twitty, George Jones, Johnny Cash, Jr, Wylon Jenning ect.....sweet music.
Hang around long enough here you will be singing another tune. People change and in AA those whiners after a while they stop and life gets better. So there is nothing to complain about.
I don't know who told you "that everytime you talk about your past it damages your psyche" but they ought to stop....lol.
Like I said your hearing what your hearing and that person sharing is hearing what they need to hear.
Did or have you ever considered this may be helping that person.
:shamrock:
Danny
I just wrote a long reply, then it got deleted by my browser... not to mention I'm really not sure I should even be wasting my time with this response in the first place, so forgive me if I sound a bit annoyed.
You want to know who told me?... My psychology professor! it's called retraumatization and it is not only detrimental but it's also has the power to take over ones personality and in some cases lead the subject back into self sabotaging behaviors and even violence.
Not sure if you've ever taken a psychology class before in your life but this is a common theme with survivors of traumatic events, and I don't believe it would be a stretch to say addicts fit in this category as well. I have witnessed it first hand, not only with friends (especially program survivors) but with in my family as well, in fact I'm pretty sure this condition is exactly what lead to my cousin committing suicide.
Let's not pretend that because you go to AA that you are some kind of expert, because clearly you are not and in my opinion, because of your ranting and raving here on fornits you are only leading those who are on the fence to discredit you and AA simply because you are the one advocating it. I'm not trying to be rude, nor do I have anything personal against you... as I hope you can tell I like to stay out of the personal drama and stick to discussing the points... But the fact that you have been so one sided, and unwilling to even consider logical reasoning makes us all sick and tired of trying to have a debate with you... it's like screaming at a brick wall :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall:
I don't know how much you may know about other programs, but the program I was in DRILLED AA/NA into our heads... I feel like if there are any experts on AA it should be me... At High Impact we literally listened to the BIG BOOK on tape (over and over again) and took tests on it... there came a point where I didn't even have to listen to the question before I knew the answer. I attended hundreds of meetings in my day, in fact it was something of a stipulation for me to not get sent back to casa to go to no less than 3 a week... I've seen it all, and done it all and because of that experience these are the questions I have. If the answer to those questions are just "you don't belong there so it will sound that way" then I believe that in and of itself proves my point.
AA is nothing but a watered down cult perpetrated by the self righteous zealots and drug war politicians... None of it makes sense, in fact most of it is ass backwards and NO ONE should consider AA/NA a legitimate "treatment" for alcoholism or drug addiction... quite frankly it pisses me off that there are so many people who are really in need of help and this is all they can get.
That being said, I am glad you have found the personal strength to improve your life, be it with the help of AA or not you have accomplished a truly remarkable feat and I commend you for that... I wouldn't be so quick to pass off the credit to AA tho, I would be very adimit to say that you and you alone earned the credit. In fact I bet you could leave AA right now and as long as you have faith in yourself and don't question your strength without AA you would be just fine without it.
I hope you don't mind but I've said all I can say here, and it looks like you are all too busy bickering to really debate this subject so I think its best if I just leave it well alone. Best of luck to you.
:rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta: :rasta:
-
Oh and I vote to change this topic to "Danny B's attitudes on AA border on the absurd...."
-
..
-
..
-
I think between the this topic and the others started around the same time (below), just about everything has been covered. Now it's just going around in circles. I'm tempted to just merge these topics into one huge supertopic.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30027 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30027)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30014 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30014)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30002 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30002)
Not that I don't' find the discussion of AA facinating... I just think a disproportionate amount of time is being spent on this issue compared to going after actual programs. Weigh things out, people.
-
..
-
Look. I'm not trying to shut anybody up about AA. I just see 90% of the recent focus being on it, rather than on actual programs such as ELAN, Cedu clones, WWASP, Straight clones, and so forth. I'll be frank. I can't stand AA, but what I hate more is forced treatment, especially of teens. I could care less what that forced treatment is comprised of. It's all wrong.
-
Psy,
I have been trying to bend the conversation more to the genesis of AA being introduced into TC's, the evolution of AA used as a methodology in these very same programs. I am very ignorant when it comes to this topic.
I understand your opinion about time being consumed talking about AA yet I don't think it is disproportionate. What I believe is disproportionate is the spamming of this thread. If folks that went to TC.s or whatever replied rationally or otherwise then moved on this would have ended long ago. But the constant spamming and negative feedback kept out positive feedback I believe. Who wants to be attacked. We had a gentleman post yesterday and his head was ripped off for mentioning a program someone didn't like and that he liked AA. This program used the 7 steps of AA.
Psy it is no mystery that yourself and many others have no liking for AA but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here it does. A very big place I am beginning to see. It effected many folks here and is still effecting children. So I don't understand why AA does not have it's own forum.
I am not trying to antagonize people with this, first let me understand why AA is even in these programs (which makes absolutely no sense to me, since it is based upon attraction and other reasons to long to mention). This is a very credible thread if everyone would take it serious.
Danny
:bs: :bs: :bs: :bs:
Wake up
Call Elan for my daily instructions
Post on Fornits
Suck Ken Zaretsky’s COCK
Post on Fornits
Drink Wild Irish Rose
Post on Fornits
Panhandle for drink money
Post on Fornits
Suck off Marty Kruglik
Post on Fornits
Drink Whiskey
Post on Fornits
Put on rubber gloves
Post on Fornits
stick finger up my anus
Post on Fornits
Shove my whole fist up my anus
Post on Fornits
Smell my hand
Post on Fornits
Lick my hand
Post on Fornits
Drink more whiskey
Post on Fornits
Recruit new AA members to molest at later date
Post on Fornits
-
Oh and I vote to change this topic to "Danny B's attitudes on AA border on the absurd...."
:shamrock:
Femanon do you think you can keep yourself from regressing to your adolescence time and have a big girl conversation. Now you said you were in college, please act like it.
:shamrock:
Danny
First things first, I am neither 23 nor in college any longer and I haven't "lived at home" since I was 17 years old. For the most part it has been in practice that I have studied this subject both in my personal life and career. I have worked for many years as a caretaker and family mediator/ counselor for special needs kids ages 4 to 18 as well worked with adults of many ages, most of which is volunteered time for various women and children's shelters, and yes, even a few drug rehabs and group homes for teens. This isn't just a class for me, it's a passion. I am fortunate enough to have a work schedule that allows me time to have such a rewarding hobby, I don't claim to be professional yet, but I consider this a great way to continue studying the human condition.
I will agree with you, I have definitely generalized my statements and I will be the first to tell you that there is no such thing as black and white... I have plenty of friends currently in AA and I enjoy their presence just as much as I do those who are not in the program. My problem is not necessarily with the people of AA, its mostly with the doctrine and the way certain practices are common place, when in a professional therapeutic setting, these practices would be avoided at all costs.
Please forgive my tendency to use my education as a comparison to the experiences I have had with different treatment methods... In my opinion that is just how one would better themselves and god forbid challenge the current policies in hopes that a more successful technique be created. I think it takes people standing up and asking questions (even generalized ones) in order to break the mode and make some progress. It's only those who are so deeply rooted in their beliefs that don't give people a chance to step in and make any suggestions. Truth be told I would still be going to AA if it were more like a support group and a lot less like a cult.
I do not generalize out of ignorance, simply put, I already ramble on and on and I don't really have the time or patience to dive into the specifics of my issues with AA, maybe I'll make an effort next time but at this point I just don't see what good it would do to attach a disclaimer to every statement I make about it not being applicable to EVERYONE EVERYWHERE. You'd think it would be common sense but can we just go ahead and make that assumption in the future?... thanks.
As far as me actually being an expert, I guess I must clarify that that was me just being facetious... in no way would I EVER claim to be an expert in AA... I'm just saying I had my fair share of an experience, and that is what has lead me to the qualms I have. Sure, you could say I was forced... but truth be told at that point in my life I was actually convinced that I was an addict and if I didn't go to those meetings I would fall back into that whole "druggie lifestyle" we talked about... well it took me some time but I came to a realization, I'm not going to perpetrate that what I believe is "right" in my case is "right" for all, but I believe I now have a more logical, less program/AA influenced opinion. I have shared this opinion with you and you may not agree, but what troubles me is that you infer I am being illogical, when ironically it is the nonsensical nature of AA/NA that I am attempting to point out. You say my "broad interpretations of AA are comical"... Well, that's good to hear because some of the things I say are meant to be comical, some things are just not meant to be taken literally or assumed to be absolute. Again, just another thing I like to leave up to common sense.
Like I said, I don't really have time to get into the specifics... another time perhaps... but hey, don't get so bent outta shape about what I think... you can take it or leave it I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone.
-
Look. I'm not trying to shut anybody up about AA. I just see 90% of the recent focus being on it, rather than on actual programs such as ELAN, Cedu clones, WWASP, Straight clones, and so forth. I'll be frank. I can't stand AA, but what I hate more is forced treatment, especially of teens. I could care less what that forced treatment is comprised of. It's all wrong.
Everything is forced on kids until they are old enough to decide for themselves. How many kids do you think walk up to their parents and say I need therapy? I need to be grounded because I broke curfew? I need an intervention because I just accidently infected a toddler with aids? Send me to a program, I deserve it?
The parents choose everything, psy. The hope is that the child will take to the therapy within the program eventually which most of them do. Most kids end up connecting to their therapist after a few visits and start to feel comfortable. It doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time. It may seem forced at first and I understand your concerns but kids need a little nudge now and then.
...
-
Look. I'm not trying to shut anybody up about AA. I just see 90% of the recent focus being on it, rather than on actual programs such as ELAN, Cedu clones, WWASP, Straight clones, and so forth. I'll be frank. I can't stand AA, but what I hate more is forced treatment, especially of teens. I could care less what that forced treatment is comprised of. It's all wrong.
Everything is forced on kids until they are old enough to decide for themselves. How many kids do you think walk up to their parents and say I need therapy? I need to be grounded because I broke curfew? I need an intervention because I just accidently infected a toddler with aids? Send me to a program, I deserve it?
Therapy should always be voluntary. Grounding is perfectly reasonable, though I think teens should also be able to emancipate if they choose. A kid in a program cannot choose to do so and as such can be sent to a program for any reason whatsoever, including no reason at all. Infecting a toddler with aids? Prison for a very long time, not treatment.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion I'm in favor of letting kids run around rampant without fear of getting punished. I don't feel that way at all. On the contrary I feel they should be held to the exact same standards as adults if they are to be given the liberties of adults earlier on. Freedom comes with responsibility and all that jazz.
So what age would I deem appropriate for adulthood? I'd say it should be whenever a kid expresses a desire to emancipate. At that point they are given all the freedom of an adult combined with all the responsibilities. Read Rothbard's thoughts on this:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp)
You don't have to agree with everything he says ( I don't ), but he has some very valid points on how giving kids liberties earlier on wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world.
The parents choose everything, psy. The hope is that the child will take to the therapy within the program eventually which most of them do. Most kids end up connecting to their therapist after a few visits and start to feel comfortable. It doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time. It may seem forced at first and I understand your concerns but kids need a little nudge now and then.
I'm all in favor of convincing kids to get treatment if they have psychological problems. I'm just not convinced force is ever required. Even in cases where it "works", which is rare in my opinion since forced treatment often causes long term harm and rarely if ever lasts in the long term, it's still not ethical.
-
...
-
Look. I'm not trying to shut anybody up about AA. I just see 90% of the recent focus being on it, rather than on actual programs such as ELAN, Cedu clones, WWASP, Straight clones, and so forth. I'll be frank. I can't stand AA, but what I hate more is forced treatment, especially of teens. I could care less what that forced treatment is comprised of. It's all wrong.
Everything is forced on kids until they are old enough to decide for themselves. How many kids do you think walk up to their parents and say I need therapy? I need to be grounded because I broke curfew? I need an intervention because I just accidently infected a toddler with aids? Send me to a program, I deserve it?
Therapy should always be voluntary. Grounding is perfectly reasonable, though I think teens should also be able to emancipate if they choose. A kid in a program cannot choose to do so and as such can be sent to a program for any reason whatsoever, including no reason at all. Infecting a toddler with aids? Prison for a very long time, not treatment.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion I'm in favor of letting kids run around rampant without fear of getting punished. I don't feel that way at all. On the contrary I feel they should be held to the exact same standards as adults if they are to be given the liberties of adults earlier on. Freedom comes with responsibility and all that jazz.
So what age would I deem appropriate for adulthood? I'd say it should be whenever a kid expresses a desire to emancipate. At that point they are given all the freedom of an adult combined with all the responsibilities. Read Rothbard's thoughts on this:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp (http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp)
You don't have to agree with everything he says ( I don't ), but he has some very valid points on how giving kids liberties earlier on wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world.
The parents choose everything, psy. The hope is that the child will take to the therapy within the program eventually which most of them do. Most kids end up connecting to their therapist after a few visits and start to feel comfortable. It doesn’t happen overnight. It takes time. It may seem forced at first and I understand your concerns but kids need a little nudge now and then.
I'm all in favor of convincing kids to get treatment if they have psychological problems. I'm just not convinced force is ever required. Even in cases where it "works", which is rare in my opinion since forced treatment often causes long term harm and rarely if ever lasts in the long term, it's still not ethical.
This is forced also: "Look, get out of the car and atleast meet with the therapist. If you dont your grounded until we figure something else out."
.....But, well, Okay, I'll take a look at what Rothbard says.
...
-
..
-
...
-
I'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what I'm tired of.
-
....
-
MILLER: But I don't see it like that. I feel like that as long as there's life, there's hope. That's my faith.
JONES: Why then is everybody dying? Some place that hope around God but everybody dies. I haven't seen anybody yet that didn't die. And I'd like to choose my own kind of death for a change. I'm tired of being tormented to hell, that's what I'm tired of. I'm tired of it....
http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestow ... /lane.html (http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/AboutJonestown/Tapes/Tapes/DeathTape/lane.html)
-
I am surprised people don't love AA more, it helped me a lot recover after becoming an alcoholic when dealing with the trauma of being in a program. :dose: I found a good forum for advice about alcoholism and using drugs at soberrecovery.com they have a forum like this but it's a lot busier with lots of posters and people needing advice and questions and stuff. Its good to have an open attitude towards AA because its not an organization just good people and where most my friends are from. :-*
-
...
-
Thus, it could well be that AA does more harm to society—and to far greater numbers of people—than all other religious cults combined.
Bang on imo..
-
I think between the this topic and the others started around the same time (below), just about everything has been covered. Now it's just going around in circles. I'm tempted to just merge these topics into one huge supertopic.
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30027 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30027)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30009)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30014 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30014)
viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30002 (http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=30002)
Not that I don't' find the discussion of AA facinating... I just think a disproportionate amount of time is being spent on this issue compared to going after actual programs. Weigh things out, people.
Agreed, but it seems that no matter what the topic, Danny manages to squeeze in his staunch defense of AA and then we feel compelled to rebut.
-
Psy,
If folks that went to TC.s or whatever replied rationally or otherwise then moved on this would have ended long ago. But the constant spamming and negative feedback kept out positive feedback I believe.
Case in point. If someone posts something negative about their experience with AA, Danny labels them liars even though he has no knowledge of the person or what they went through.
first let me understand why AA is even in these programs (which makes absolutely no sense to me, since it is based upon attraction and other reasons to long to mention). This is a very credible thread if everyone would take it serious.
Danny
It came from Synanon...they started using it first and that was the start of TCs using it.
-
I was thinking of this topic I brought up a while ago, exactly where was I going with my thoughts and what I wanted to accomplish with them. I really don't think I really wanted to educate y'all
:rofl: :rofl:
because most of you who commented are deeply entrenched in your opinions and feelings based on your experiences.
And tons of research. But you're also basing your opinions on your experiences, so what makes yours any more valid than ours?
I guess I wanted to express my inability to understand the depth of negative feedback I received concerning AA. I don't still understand the fear that AA is controlling, a cult and a resource of rehabilitation that should be avoided at all costs.
We disagree with your POV re: AA and you don't like it so you lash out. I don't think anyone said it should be 'avoided at all costs'. In fact, I've said numerous times that it can be great as strictly a support group without the groupthink. Get rid if the big book, 12 & 12, the control sponsors have over people and I really don't have a problem with it.
Most of my dismay came because I was listening to folks I found to be educated and experienced in the field of rehabing folks for various drug and alcohol abuse, come out with what I thought outrageous accusations and or opinions concerning AA's principles.
I know! You don't like what you're hearing, so you go on the attack.
Now we can go in and discredit Bill and Bob and their vision as the "orange papers" and others have done. Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial
It's not immaterial because he/they are revered as almost Christlike.
because as we all know AA is voluntary,
Not really. Courts order people to attend and even in states that have ruled that they can't do that, some are forced into it via the "exit plans" that programs use....i.e....if you don't go to AA I won't speak to you any longer.
I probably will never really understand what your fear of AA is all about because I don't take AA or life that seriously to begin with.
Good for you, but a lot of people DO take it as gospel.
AA is not the problem here it is the folks who become affiliated with AA and pervert it and use it for their purposes.
As many of us have said, it's not the people we have a problem with...it's the basic tenents (big book, 12 & 12 etc.) that I and others feel are dangerous.
-
:seg:
It came from Synanon...they started using it first and that was the start of TCs using it.
Synanon Defined
The Synanon organization, initially a drug rehabilitation program, was founded by Charles E. "Chuck" Dederich, Sr., (1913–1997) in 1958, in Santa Monica, California, United States. By the early 1960s, Synanon had also become an alternative community, attracting people with its emphasis on living a self-examined life, as aided by group truth-telling sessions that came to be known as the "Synanon Game". Synanon ultimately became the cultish Church of Synanon in the 1970s, and Synanon disbanded permanently in 1989 due to many criminal activities, including murder and attempted murder, and civil legal problems, including Federal tax-evasion problems with the Internal Revenue Service .
Check out the red bolded in the definition
:deal: :deal:
-
Anne,
I am not pushing propaganda for AA. I thought that I had made my position on AA clear. I am not a rabid member nor someone that wholesale agrees with all of the principles.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhhht.
DannyB II wrote:
Matty be careful I visit your hometown with about 250 other AA men for a conference every May look it up. I should be seeing you in May. We just may corral you and before you know it you be brainwashed.
Daniel Lee Bennison threatens Matt C. Hoffamn
-
Anne,
I am not pushing propaganda for AA. I thought that I had made my position on AA clear. I am not a rabid member nor someone that wholesale agrees with all of the principles.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigggghhhhhhhhht.
DannyB II wrote:
Matty be careful I visit your hometown with about 250 other AA men for a conference every May look it up. I should be seeing you in May. We just may corral you and before you know it you be brainwashed.
Daniel Lee Bennison threatens Matt C. Hoffamn
-
If you were in straight they rammed it down your throat. AA is dangerous now???
Bbbbbut AA and Straight are different, right?? You can't have it both ways.
Having the freedom to pick up a book and read or not is dangero
No, but when the book says "do it this way or DIE" it smacks of cultish behavior.
"No Anne It is folks like you that misrepresent information that can help people for the sole reason it doesn't fit your mold".
Danny L. Bennison believed in do or die. Thanks to all who quoted the post deleting little stepcrafter bitch. It is sad that we didn't get all of his AA promoting bullshit. He made AA proud , or did he ? I think he exposed what type of nuts you could find yourself in a room with during a meeting . Caveat Emptor.
Your opinion.
Why is it every time I have disagreed with you, "You" have come back defensive.
I haven't.
Calling AA dangerous is just irresponsible behavior
Your opinion.
, I can understand that you don't like their philosophies or principles but "dangerous" come'on.
yes, even their own study shows that binge drinking increased, the death rate increased, so yeah...dangerous.
Bill was a crazy one no doubt with his language, follow the 12 steps "suggestions" to the best of my "ability" I sign my own death warrant. Ya, considering when I walked in the room of AA I was within 2 weeks of looking at a toe tag. Why are you afraid of absolutes.
Because they're not real life.
If not go out and pick up a bottle and drink if you are a alcoholic you have a 50% chance of surviving if not have a drink on me.
I will in about 1/2 hour! :cheers: I don't have a problem, contrary to what both Straight and AA told me.
Whether you like it or not their are alcoholics and someone or something will be treating them.
Yes, and I'd rather they get treated by professionals with clinical research to back up their methods.
So since your not a alcoholic what is your argument. What the fuck do you care your not out there trying to help. Your just ranting at me because you don't like the way I talk to people and how I talk about AA.
No, I think AA is a dangerous program that convinces people that they're alcoholics even if they're not. I think it's dangerous to the alcoholics when they say 'do it our way or DIE'.
Which brings me back to my point you are full of Doo Doo, you really could give a rats ass if AA is here or not it doesn't effect your life...please.
There's that joyous happy and free spirit again!
Of course I tell them to do a 90/90, I'm telling you for your frustrations boiling over.
Danny
:roflmao: No dear...you have no effect on my mood, other than to give me the occasional chuckle at the Stepcrafter.
-
Anne, you're crotch pitcher is disqusting. You hore
And, give me back my gold :soapbox:
-
I wish you ass holes wood stop impersonating me.
-
I wish you ass holes wood stop impersonating me.
Danny if you left fornits all together, it would be great for this website. The admins probably don't see it that way because you've donated money; several times; to pay for hosting fee's. Maybe that's why you're given so many free rides.
-
:agree:
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
-
:agree:
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Danny's admission!
-
....
-
project much danny . Youre motive of operation has been to always attack with perverse sexual comments , look at youre ;danny bennison needs a new avitar thread, and Since you have been at fornits , you stoop to these gay slurrs at the slighest disagreement from people you percieve to be men.It is obvious from reading youre drivel that if it is not a cut and paste job of youre's than it is some form of attacking. Really going after a cartoons croch because you hate strong women who will put you in your place and take youre bullshit . Who knows and who cares why you bennison do it, you did it .Youre retarted defensce of being accused of raping children while working at elan as a ass director , was danny, profoundly absurd. Ya feelin me and Ya you aint foolin no body on fornits or elsewhere we all know who and what youre fake profiles are.Know what we mean Quagmire ,CryerZ, rudy, horate,devli, and the list will grow as you run from reality because you are such a sick little whatever. Cafety and redditts has done more to expose and close programs then you have ever done in yore life, and will ever do ,because you see danny with out these horribly abusive programs you cease to exist. No one knows why you are like this and no one knows why you chose this route to take We do know you are one sick ,sick little man who could never tell the truth even if god said that he/she would bring back youre own mother from the grave. Yeah ya just couldn't do it you are that sick and incapable of self awareness as to what you say,do,and are. We think you are a danger to society. Remember danny just because you think the world is out to get you doesn't mean its not .lol. you are a joke of a human being. .lol.
-
.....
-
Danny B deleting his posts again :roflmao:
What a joke. :twofinger:
-
project much danny . Youre motive of operation has been to always attack with perverse sexual comments , look at youre ;danny bennison needs a new avitar thread, and Since you have been at fornits , you stoop to these gay slurrs at the slighest disagreement from people you percieve to be men.It is obvious from reading youre drivel that if it is not a cut and paste job of youre's than it is some form of attacking. Really going after a cartoons croch because you hate strong women who will put you in your place and take youre bullshit . Who knows and who cares why you bennison do it, you did it .Youre retarted defensce of being accused of raping children while working at elan as a ass director , was danny, profoundly absurd. Ya feelin me and Ya you aint foolin no body on fornits or elsewhere we all know who and what youre fake profiles are.Know what we mean Quagmire ,CryerZ, rudy, horate,devli, and the list will grow as you run from reality because you are such a sick little whatever. Cafety and redditts has done more to expose and close programs then you have ever done in yore life, and will ever do ,because you see danny with out these horribly abusive programs you cease to exist. No one knows why you are like this and no one knows why you chose this route to take We do know you are one sick ,sick little man who could never tell the truth even if god said that he/she would bring back youre own mother from the grave. Yeah ya just couldn't do it you are that sick and incapable of self awareness as to what you say,do,and are. We think you are a danger to society. Remember danny just because you think the world is out to get you doesn't mean its not .lol. you are a joke of a human being. .lol.
no truer words , you need to add the new Danny B. II troll to the growing list his fake names. Danny Bennison has created a new user profile to troll himself, or any other poor unsuspecting program survivor. You are a bad very bad person Daniel L. Bennison.
-
project much danny . Youre motive of operation has been to always attack with perverse sexual comments , look at youre ;danny bennison needs a new avitar thread, and Since you have been at fornits , you stoop to these gay slurrs at the slighest disagreement from people you percieve to be men.It is obvious from reading youre drivel that if it is not a cut and paste job of youre's than it is some form of attacking. Really going after a cartoons croch because you hate strong women who will put you in your place and take youre bullshit . Who knows and who cares why you bennison do it, you did it .Youre retarted defensce of being accused of raping children while working at elan as a ass director , was danny, profoundly absurd. Ya feelin me and Ya you aint foolin no body on fornits or elsewhere we all know who and what youre fake profiles are.Know what we mean Quagmire ,CryerZ, rudy, horate,devli, and the list will grow as you run from reality because you are such a sick little whatever. Cafety and redditts has done more to expose and close programs then you have ever done in yore life, and will ever do ,because you see danny with out these horribly abusive programs you cease to exist. No one knows why you are like this and no one knows why you chose this route to take We do know you are one sick ,sick little man who could never tell the truth even if god said that he/she would bring back youre own mother from the grave. Yeah ya just couldn't do it you are that sick and incapable of self awareness as to what you say,do,and are. We think you are a danger to society. Remember danny just because you think the world is out to get you doesn't mean its not .lol. you are a joke of a human being. .lol.
no words could be more true.
-
.......
-
Fuck you Niggers. I'm tired of it all. This is Felice and Matt and Wayne trying to drive me off Forits and it is not going to work
Before you delete it :feedtrolls:
-
Stop faking posts
-
Wayne, stop faking my fake profile. This is really a gay thing to do
I never called Obama a nigger. I may think it once in a while but I would never say it
:soapbox:
-
I don't even know who to quote anymore
-
That would be me you fucking retard
-
That would be me you fucking retard
No, that would be me you fucking pervert
-
Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide:
-
Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: Danny should kill himself :suicide: